On Thu 2015-02-05 03:13:46 -0500, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 02:29 AM, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>> While I am in the group that sometimes wished they could eat the
>> vegetarian dish, because it looked tastier, or because they wanted to
>> skip meat one day, I really don't agree with your proposal.
Can you think of a better way to frame it so that we can avoid the
every-meal-has-meat baseline assumption that the current framing
implies?
>> No dietary restrictions means what it means, not that meat is
>> mandatory. Lacto-ovo-vegetarian is by definition a dietary
>> restriction, no matter how you frame it.
Right, what i was proposing was the people who have no dietary
restrictions should be OK with getting a meal that is (as a baseline)
lacto-ovo vegetarian; those who have a restriction that requires them to
eat meat could identify themselves so that they could be sure to have
meat.
The people who are providing us with food will need guidance about what
to prepare in any case; being clear to them about the needs and desires
of the group will help them to help feed us sensibly.
> IIRC there was some discussion to offer less meat. I don't think we should
> offer mandatory meat/fish every lunch/dinner. But if somebody think that
> eating meat/fish every meal is a MUST, we could add "must eat meat/fish at
> every meal" as restriction. This could be added later, when we have more
> information, and in any case not the default.
Sure, adding "must eat meat/fish at every meal" to the current options
would be a fine step to take.
And perhaps we could use balance of numbers between "must eat meat/fish
at every meal" and "vegetarian" to give the catering staff a suggestion
of how to plan the dishes for the "no dietary restrictions" people.
e.g. if 10 people say "must eat meat/fish at every meal" and 5 people
register vegetarian of some sort, then the "main course" (assuming the
people supplying food only want to prepare one main dish for those who
did not specify a dietary restriction) will be meat two times out of
three instead of three times out of three. Or, since two dishes are
being prepared for every meal anyway (meat and veg), the numbers of each
dish prepared in total could be based on that ratio, instead of assuming
that the "no dietary restrictions" folks must have meat.
That would help to address the large-group meat-overconsumption dynamic
i'm raising.
> I'm also in favour to book more vegetarian menus, and offer meat only
> to the first 60-80% of carnivore people (as first served basis), which
> could help me, tincho and many others to have a mixed diet.
Hm, i think i would say it as "offer vegetarian meals to the first
20%-40% of omnivores (as a first-served basis)", since that's what's
usually missing from these arrangements. I hope that we can actually
offer meat to 100% of the strict carnivores in attendance, or else
they'll be very hungry. ;)
And yes, i think this makes sense (though i'm not sure how you come up
with the right ratio; maybe based on the expressed preferences, as
suggested above).
So i'm amending my earlier proposal to this:
Dietary restrictions:
- Not applicable
- No dietary restrictions <<Default>>
- Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian (dairy and eggs OK)
- Vegan (strict vegetarian)
- Meat required at every meal
- Other (contact <registration@debconf.org> ASAP)
Is that OK with people?
Thanks for engaging constructively with this!
All the best,
--dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature