I agree with all your suggestions for fixing the inconsistencies (org.jboss.virtual, etc..)
I think eventually we want nothing or very few things with a groupId of "org.jboss". Instead they should have something like "org.jboss.<project-name>".
Yes, we should clean it up before CR1 and use consistent naming schemes across artifacts. I like Pauls idea (http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=132942) to start over with a clean repository so that in order to check you could disable the legacy one which contains artifacts with old names.
If we don't do it now, we stick with it.
Currently we have a mix of artifacts that have been converted from our previous repository format (was this automated, Paul?), which contain wrong names and stuff that's been properly added (i.e. manual release).
I think we need to migrate everything to the proper naming convention at once. Especially with CR1 being close everyday new artifacts pop-up and reference legacy names. This way we never get to a clean repo.
But maybe this is just another academic discussion?
The first thing is to have clear guidelines to apply to whatever new version is produced. This includes groupId/componentIds, repository location and versioning.
While doing this, keep notes (JIRA tasks?) of things that need fixing in the poms of future version of related projects.
Migration of legacy stuff to the legacy repo could happen in the background.