The success of Open Science in addressing the replication crisis and restoring credibility in psychology can be understood more completely by examining the successes and challenges of adapting the recommended best practices by researchers at different types of institutions, different career stages, and from different subfields within social and personality psychology. In this article, we offer personal reflections about the impact and future of the Open Science movement in a conversational form between three researchers at varying career stages who focus on different subdisciplines (relationship science, diversity science, and social neuroscience and social cognition) and work at universities that place a different emphasis on research (relative to teaching and service). We see many successes of the open science movement, but we also note that implementation has trailed behind its full potential because (a) the incentive structures of our existing rigid system remain misaligned with some open-science goals, and (b) some open science solutions were designed by researchers with certain types of scientific practices in mind. We all feel encouraged by the focus on larger samples, greater data sharing, and pre-registration both for experimental design and analytical decisions. However, there are areas that need attention. Our perspective is that the open science movement has not been as strong of an ally as it could be to another goal of psychological science: increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Additionally, more careful consideration of how to facilitate data sharing and pre-registration is needed and may necessitate a shift in the incentive structure of our field.