From a purely linguistic perspective, it's hard to argue with any of this. And I don't have a skin in the game here; objectively, it doesn't matter to me if Montenegrin becomes eligible or not. Still, I would say the following:

Concerning MF-Warburg's comment: I fully understand that the others are grandfathered and wouldn't be created now. But the fact that they exist now means that the question about Montenegrin cannot be considered in a vacuum, either.

Concerning Jan's comment: I hear you. But to extend your analogy, the Irish are looking for an Irish English wiki because every time an Irishman tries to bring a different POV to articles about Ireland on the British wiki, s/he is being shot down. (Pretend it's 1975, or 1922, and the example is more trenchant.) Also, this whole issue of language secessionism doesn't really exist in English, so to make that comparison is only partially valid.

I do think we need to hear from Milos on this subject.

Let me add: On the Meta discussion page, I'm about to allow the discussion to reopen, with a focus on really two questions only:

• The principal question is whether or not Montenegrins actually have "free, unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge"  on the current projects. What they keep suggesting is that they don't:  Serbian POV dominates, and Montenegrin POV is given short shrift. I am going to ask the Montenegrin advocates to prove that with concrete examples. But if they do so, then either (a) NPOV is going to have to be enforced from the outside (if that's even possible, but thereby violating normal practices of project autonomy) or (b) we're going to have to allow the Montenegrins to have their own project.
• The second question: It's really quite remarkable in a way that the Montenegrins got the Library of Congress to make the first change to ISO 639-2 in five years. I'll grant that was probably just a political victory. But I'm going to invite the Montenegrin community to share any new evidence that they may have that may have changed LoC's mind, and could change ours. Maybe there isn't any new evidence. But if there is, we should be open to it.

Steven