I think people may expect too much from a couple of guys at Berkeley who are trying to do something rather than waiting for other people to do it.  From a Singularity Hub comment:

Comment: I have high expectations for Open Science, but I had low expectations for this summit. Unfortunately, my expectations greatly exceeded reality. Yes, I wrote that correctly; If this meeting represents the the state of the field of open science, I’m afraid that I have no better word for it than: “Ugh!” What a bunch of ignorant fanboys (and girls); there were so many stupid claims about what makes science work or not work, and so many dumb ideas about what to do about it, that I found myself yelling at fora.tv at least once during almost every talk (sometimes out loud, which startled the folks in my office). I was also watching the fora.tv chat and backchan.nl discussion, which was even lamer than the talks. The CoLab thing that you called the “high point” was pretty much a plain vanilla forum. (With voting and all! Please spare us!) Later that afternoon Michael Nielsen gave a talk which started out by listing the pile of similar things that had failed. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. And Fail.

TED probably wasn't anything great in 1984 but they stuck with it and now it is a polished conference so no one should expect to much from an Open Science Summit 1.0.

The downside to having something become jargonized, like web 2.0 or Open Science (and that we have tried to resist happening with Science 2.0), is that people can say anything and over time it demeans the actual value of people doing real things - I hope one of these guys can make it stick and codify a real definition of what open science will be.