Hi Scott:
I totally understand the roles for MicroProfile and Jakarta EE. I respect your position that this is "good practice in specification work," but I strongly feel the need to make a couple of comments:
[a] You make it sound that the MicroProfile specifications are, for the most part, not "useful" until some criteria has been met.
[b] If I understand everything correctly, Red Hat views MicroProfile as a means to "harvest" specifications when the time is right.
MicroProfile already consumes Jakarta EE specifications (CDI, JSON-P, etc.) that have the history going back to Java EE 7. So why can't the opposite be true??
I didn't understand why there was a need to create a Jakarta Config specification when the MicroProfile Config specification is quite capable of handling configuration in Jakarta EE applications. We already use it in Jakarta NoSQL. And I won't even get into the proposal to harvest MicroProfile JWT.
I'm a strong advocate for both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile. I serve as a committer to the Jakarta Data and Jakarta NoSQL specifications, and the Garden State JUG serves on both working groups. I totally agree that we should all learn how to work together. But, it shouldn't come at the cost of one group taking specifications from another.
I look forward to discussing this further in 2023.
Mike.