There is a point in Steve's remarks
>If Jakarta Config went through the JESP then the IP would be clean enough. It is not necessary on the Jakarta side to wait for the >MP WG to sort itself out.
>MP specs aren't going to be consumable in their raw state due to the pull model approved by MP and the desire to support >both MP and Jakarta in a single runtime. Bidirectional dependencies between the initiatives with different cadences and >stability goals will be a nightmare. This concern was raised on the MP side but dismissed as "not our problem".
>Also any MP spec may need changes to cleanly integrate to ensure a consistent experience in the Jakarta EE platform and the >Jakarta platform has different stability requirements. The MP statement is to forge ahead without regard to consumers of specs.
So it could be subject to ALL of MP applying the JESP, even the most "exotic" ones, otherwise that won't work and those that seem technically more mature and stable like config would suffer from a few who try to be very "agile" and "fast" at the cost of a mature stable platform.
While it may not appeal to all "Microprofs" the idea Sebastian Daschner proposed with MicroProfile as a kind of "sandbox" or incubator does not sound so bad. As long as the mature projects or subprojects respect the necessary stability goals and everything else like IP (which IMO all of MicrorProfile must do, otherwise a feature would never be able to "graduate" and become usable by the Jakarta platform)
The namespace is a technicality, calling it "jakarta.config" instead of "org.eclipse.microprofile.config" offers a consistent experience in the Jakarta EE platform like Steve mentioned, but technically both would work fine.