If you made this list of three VCs public, it would place much greater pressure on VCs to never, ever do this. Having a term sheet pulled is low probability, but it can all but kill the chances of closing a round.
I think there's a difference between sharing their names in the appropriate places (eg, a startup school presentation), and publishing them on a social news site. It's contextually similar to a common discussion about celebrities and criminals, which compares "the public interest" with "of interest to the public".
I'd be interested to know who they are. But until / unless I get involved with the VC community and meet with pg to discuss, it's not beneficial for me to know.
The reason I don't is not that I'm against that in principle, but that it would be too extreme a measure in these 3 specific cases. If a VC did something bad enough I would talk about it publicly.
(Yes, I know it's impolitic - and Chris does the same "all the people I know will be told" line - but as one of those crazy transparency > feelings people, it'd be my preferred outcome. I only spent one year on the VC side in my short career, but I'd have resigned if we ever even thought about pulling this stunt.)
