Like if 30 EAs are at a party, and their time is conservatively valued at $100/h, the party is already burning >$50/minute, just as another example. Hopefully that time is worth it.
This is probably a bit of an aside, but I don’t think that is a valid way to argue about the value of time for people: It seems quite unlikely to me that instead of going to an EA party those people would actually have done productive work with a value of $100/h. You only have so many hours that you can actually do productive work and the counterfactual of going to this party would more likely be those people going to a (non-EA) party, going for dinner with friends, spending time with family, relaxing, etc than actually doing productive work.
I think there are various reasons for not having such a list public:
It will (literally) create a first tier, second tier, etc of organisations in the effective altruism community, which feels bad/confusing.
People will associate the organisation the grant is given to with the tier, while it was actually that specific grant that was evaluated.
The information that are provided publicly for a given grant are likely only a small subset of the information that was used to decide the tier, but people just looking through the list won’t know or acknowledge that, leading to confusion about the actual bar.
If an organisation submits a funding request containing different activities, Open Phil will fund all those above the bar, but the different activities can be in different tiers, so would should be done in this case?
Organisations will likely want to have more information why their grant is on a specific tier which will might to additional work for lots of people.
Various of the above points just might lead to confusion by people trying to understand what the funding bar is.
I’m also confused slightly confused about the advantages you mention:
Those of us who are creating new projects would have a much better understanding of what OpenPhil would fund and be able to create better more aligned projects to OpenPhil’s goals. The EA community lacks a strong longtermist incubator and this is I expect one of the challenges.
Isn’t this to a large extent already possible as OpenPhil is publishing the grants they made? (I acknowledge that there is a time of maybe a year or so that we are in now where this is not really the case because the bar changed and maybe it would help for this period but not in general.)
Other funders could fill gaps that they believe OpenPhil has missed, or otherwise use OpenPhil’s tiers in their decision making.
I don’t understand the first point, I think this would only work if OpenPhil also would publish grant requests that they don’t fund (?) The second point might be true, but could also be a disadvantage.
It allows OpenPhil to receive useful constructive feedback or critiques.
That’s true, but it could also lead to non-constructive feedback and critiques or non-constructive discussions in the community.
I’m not saying that OpenPhil definitively shouldn’t publish the list, but I think there would be a lot of points for and against to be weigh up.