Being bold is in this case (and in my opinion) not trying to access un-free (libre) content.

As I commented on the google doc, to me any 'hack' in accessing and using pay-walled (or gold openaccess) content is reinforcing them as a needed component. They are not (unless we let them be).
I would advice against publishing in "not open" journals. Ignoring them altogether. But to do that, we'd need alternatives. They exist (in ranging degree of openness). And some are developing in wikiversities : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group
Some researcher communities, quitting proprietary journals is not unprecedented
(http://openaccess.inist.fr/?Lingua-face-a-Elsevier-pour ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossa_(journal)
http://sigir.org/files/forum/F2001/sigirFall01Letters.html ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Machine_Learning_Research)
The more we delay by h/cr-acking proprietary journals, the latter we'll see "open, global, collaborative research ecosystem" appear.
The trick is not a huge (operational) step. Convince enough 'secured' (titulaire / holder) researchers to start organizing as reviewing groups under an open system and divert all publication work toward it (including organizing conferences, a thing WMF already learned to its own purpose).
But don't fool ourselves. In terms of academical power, it's an overwhelmingly huge step. And some professors will drown (and fight it).
Full-rights OA (FROA) is easier to access, use, quote, mix... and should thus be positively received in those biblio-metric indicators our institutions put us under. Changing biblio-flows is changing the monitoring of our activities thus the power pathways (this is where it is a huge change). More importantly, under such a system the content should fall under Linus's_Law.

So " Is the OA movement involved enough in making wikimedian journals (or any fully open one) arise ? " That's my bold question.