Tēnā koutou! I think the most disconcerting element, is that according to  http://www.natlib.govt.nz/about-us/news/29-april-2011-kotui-development?body... there were three vendor decisions taken. While it is novel that this in effect makes one experience safe from another, it will be quite tricky to ensure a seamless experience for the user.         My pride in Koha aside, there were other alternatives I would have lauded. Evergreen would have been a wonderful choice. VuFind would have made some modicum of sense. Some elements of XC, though rough, should have been at least a wee bit intriguing. Why would one willingly choose a slate of products that is just not customisable in this day and age?         Even if one were going to tow the proprietary company line, how is it that Sirsi, a truly crummy product after the merger, won out over Innovative? Was no research on satisfaction weighed in the decision making process? Was Ex Libris even on the table? I could understand why a decision to opt for those over Koha would be taken. They are rich products, despite living behind their velvet ropes. Sirsi's code wouldn't pass muster for most basic level computer science courses. Even Polaris would have made vague sense over the litigious Sirsi. EBSCO? Really?         From an economic standpoint, this just continues to baffle me. In Koha or Kete, the National Library would have been supporting Kiwi employment, initiative, and innovation. The investment would stay at home, leading to truly rich developments fostered by people that are rooted in the same soil. It's boggling to have supported Kete only to turn about and look to summat seriously untested and inferior in its place.         It is depressing to see what I formerly held as an innovative forward thinking National Library do a 180 and take a few paces then stall out. My 2 beads, Brooke