I hear what you are saying. That sentence about the coalface does seem a bit 'chippy' when I read it back. But, in fairness, I think the work you are doing is in danger of giving MOOCs a good name. My understanding is that you are making those links back to the advances made by OER.
Our MOOC lives on afterwards as an OER - and everything within it is either PD, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Nothing NC. Is it linked to OER, well I doubt if I'd never seen OER i'd have done it, but as some one who believes in a public university, and by public as in access, I think I can see how a MOOC fits into the same ethos of access.
I don't think academics aren't committed to OER - just look at Nottingham Vet School, or various Oxford academics still making OER long after the funding has gone. What the issue would seem to be is "research academics", who would seem to have different priorities, but then, I would assume they are supposed to remain as a neutral observer and so on. The fact a movement exists, or is notable, suggests something worthy of research.
I do lots of open stuff out of my own pocket and time. I'd not say I was involved in an OER movement, or an OER activist. However I am concerned, with things such as a new definition of openness and by people drawing lines that all we are doing is ostracising people, or giving people the idea they aren't doing enough. The term open practice concerns me as it (to me) means you are part of a culture, when you might just want to license your work and then forget about it.