Hi Reza.
No need to get sad, it's just an opinion.
I am not at all saying that Jakarta EE is not worth it. At the moment there are 2 communities that is not going to be combined into one (at least not now, maybe not ever)
However, we are in the situation that Jakarta EE needs config (and later maybe other APIs). In my opinion we can:
1) Create a new (similar) specification under Jakarta that looks like MicroProfile Config but it's not and users can not move between them. I.e config code written in MicroProfile Config is different that in Jakarta Config. Having more than one standard for the same thing just becomes messy (just look at all the travel adaptors for electrical plugs you need when you travel) This is however what JSR382 is doing.
2) Just use the MicroProfile Config spec as is in Jakarta EE. Not sure if Jakara will do that or want that because MicroProfile can not guarantee backward compatibility and might make breaking changes. It also (anyway) take away the brand from the namespace as it would be org.eclipse.microprofile. However, at least there is just one standard, so IMHO a better idea than 1.
3) Do what I suggested, where we start creating APIs and Specs under multiple workgroups and processes, but using the same (non-branded) namespace. This allows us move Specs between Umbrellas without any code changes. Better for the developer/users.
Yes we loose some branding when the developer do the import of the namespace, but we never really had that (Java EE / J2EE was never in the namespace, only javax that is in more than Java EE)
We would still have the brand in the maven artifact of the umbrella, so when a developer use Jakarta EE, that would be in the pom. However, if the developer use the individual specification in the pom, there will be no branding, not from MicroProfile nor from Jakarta.
I do not think this suggestion shows we can not get together like you suggest, in fact I think it's the opposite. Doing option 1 is showing we can not.
In fact I would argue that having the ability to create specifications in multiple workgroups is more scalable that just having one process and one workgroup
Anyway ,happy to debate this - I might be wrong.
Cheers