On my phone, so copy paste from github is terrible, but here are some initial thoughts.
Security wise, it will make things worse. Namespace packages are merged with all matching names on sys.path, and any actual package will hide the whole thing. Better to just make it a directory of scripts and avoid relying on sys.path to find it. (The directory needs an entry in sysconfig, or to be defined relative to an entry in there.)
Also, it would be nice to have a way for sitecustomize.py to suppress importing the namespace package. Probably something to call or set in site.py. That way controlled Python installs can lock down a single file, still allow package installs, and not risk arbitrary code execution.
Pip has concerns about code that is imported on startup, because it can lock files and prevent update or uninstall. Using -S isn’t an option, because that would omit pip itself, so making sure that “allow site but without customizations” is relatively easy to achieve will probably be necessary.
You keep saying “import the namespace package and execute any scripts found”. If you change to a normal directory, ignore this, but there are subtle differences between importing a module and executing a file, particularly for relative imports from that module. Please be clear whether each file will be imported or merely have its code executed (I would vote for the latter).
I’d also dispute namespace packages making this easier to teach. I regularly teach very smart engineers about them, and they ALWAYS start with misconceptions and finish with different misconceptions. They are complicated and get messy, and the sys.path resolution behaviour is never what anyone really expects (particularly the security implications). At best, this addition might make namespace packages easier to teach, but then, the things that need teaching are not things that we want this feature to have.
I’ve written enough now that I forget the rest. Once I’m back at work and a proper PC I’ll take another look.