Ah! This comment made me realize what to say here – something I’ve been thinking about unsuccessfully for the past few days
This vote is not like those on the mailing list. I need to register two votes, each with a different hat on.
As just a core dev, I say go ahead! Since there’s PSF money involved, be careful about accounting and reporting. Run it as an experiment: what’s the hypothesis (what exactly do we expect to happen when we put money on mentoring)? How well will that hold up when it’s actually tried? How can the next run be improved?
I trust you’ll manage to do that well. That would make my vote +0.5.
As an employee of Red Hat, a PSF sponsor, I’m quite uneasy. In my job I’m asked to prioritize customer issues, but those come in waves, so most of the time the team has significant “spare” capacity to work upstream, on things like core development and mentoring. Since we do that, Red Hat does not generally donate to non-profits that pay people for development tasks (which reviewing patches certainly is). If PSF would be to do this regularly, Red Hat would probably need to revisit the sponsorship.
That would make the vote -1 (but maybe it would be OK to try once, then find alternate ways to fund if it works).
I don’t want either of these votes attached to just my name. One is from Petr the individual, ignoring his employer’s interests. The other from Petr the Red Hatter.