>However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for the Latin project, and most likely for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese, all of whom are disqualified from further progress.
What is this supposed to mean? If these wikis exist, they are not "disqualified from further progress".
If Latin wants a new kind of wiki, say a Wikiversity wiki, which is more flexible for original content creation and educational materials, the policy bars this from taking place, because all new ALWs are barred, except Wikisource wikis.
The same applies for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese.
> Finally there is a question as to whether Ancient Greek in particular deserves a shot at a project.
Yes, this question has been discussed many times over the last few years, with no positive outcome for an Ancient Greek Wikipedia. None of this is new, which is why it makes no sense to say "the policy lacks consultation" or whatever. Langcom has often discussed about the ancient languages issues, but never with consensus to change the current policy.
This is I’m afraid a circular argument: The policy bans ancient languages from a WP; AG has been denied a WP because AG is an ancient language; therefore the policy is correct.
I have noted all of the RFCs which appear to have discussed the Ancient Language policy, as opposed to Wiki requests, and I can find no discusson of the policy itself. Please do correct me if I am wrong.
It is not just there because some magical force put it there in 2007 and we are too stupid to change it.