I have been following the debate and try to summarize the positions (maybe I am wrong): Concerning the future role of open-access publishing: P1: Open access online journals are important and should be supported because they give a public character to academic knowledge. Locked down journals should be boycotted. P2: Non-profit open access online journals should be supported because the for-profit ones charge unacceptable author-rates. P3: High-quality academic publishing is in need of a high amount of resources (money, time, persons, etc.), which can be best managed by the established corporate models of publishing. PN: Any combination of other elements. The debate then shifted towards the role of peer-reviewing and the question of there should be open rating instead of anonymous peer-review: S1: Academic publishing is stratified by reputation that is accumulated and controlled through the peer-review system. The alternative is a public review system, all or most works submitted get published, everyone can comment and make ratings. S2: The peer-review procedure works well as it is now, it is a high quality standard in science. Open access and public reviewing/commenting might undercut these quality standards. SN: Some middle-ground. Personal positions and experiences seem to be guiding in such debates, so it might be best, as suggested by Charles, to pause for a moment and resume the discourse in some days, with less emotions and in a less heated way. Christian --