Scott, A good piece, as usual. I do want to clarify the section about the Frankfurt STM meeting, and my comments. I am critical of specific manifestations of OA pointedly -- I think megajournals do a poor job of putting the research in front of the right readers; I think BMC is doing a poor job managing conflicts of interest they've created in their corporate sponsorship program; I think eLife is problematic at its base from a conflict of interest perspective and have demonstrated they are willing to break rules to get their way; and I don't believe that OA will change the constellation of publishers much, result in cost savings, or improve quality. I don't recall there being as much pushback during the STM meeting as you portray. There were certainly defensive people from BMC and otherwise, but from my vantage point, I made eye contact with many publishers nodding and agreeing that there are still things to work out, to improve, and refine. I think this is the point of your essay, actually. That if we simply throw down the sledge of legislation and think this will do it, we're wrong. What has to happen is engagement, refinement, and implementation of high standards that can include access but can't be limited to access. Part of engaging means holding every publisher to high standards of behavior. I'll continue to write when I think standards are slipping or missing. That's not anti-OA. That's anti-apathy. So, in that regard, I love this essay. If librarians were to truly engage, they might realize exactly what OA might mean for them, how they need to get into the discussion, and how they need to change to survive and thrive.