On Wed 2015-02-04 11:21:19 -0500, Nattie Mayer-Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:42:18AM +0100, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
>> Dietary restrictions:
>> - Not applicable
>> - No dietary restrictions <<Default>>
>> - Vegetarian
>> - Vegan (strict vegetarian)
>> - Other (contact <registrat...@debconf.org> ASAP)
Could frame this differently? The normal framing (above) often ends up
with an assumption that everyone must eat meat, with only a limited
set-aside for vegetarians. This results in overconsumption of meat: it
forces normal people to eat meat in order to avoid running out of
vegetarian dishes for the vegetarians.
Maybe it could be rephrased something like this:
Dietary restrictions:
- Not applicable
- No dietary restrictions (lacto-ovo vegetarian) <<Default>>
- Meat required
- Vegan (strict vegetarian)
- Other (contact <registrat...@debconf.org> ASAP)
This way, we could ensure that the people who need meat can get it,
without pushing everyone who isn't explicitly vegetarian into eating
meat.
I'm also open to other suggestions that would also help us avoid this
common large-group meat-overconsumption pattern.
--dkg
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
