[Chicago] [PyCON-Organizers] My visit to the conference hotel

[Don Spaulding II]

Douglas Napoleone wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Don Spaulding II
> <donspauldingii at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>
>>  David Goodger wrote:
>>
>>  Right. Better to go with a healthy proportion of vegetarian-friendly food.
>>
>>  Don Spaulding wrote:
>>
>>  If this means we're converting meat meals to veggie meals, I'm a big -1.
>> If it simply means ordering more veggie meals, without altering the number
>> of meated ones, disregard the rest of this rant ;-)
>>
>>  I can get behind over-ordering each type of meal, but don't change the
>> ratio of meat/non-meat meals in expectation of people switching.
>>
>>  People indicated their dietary preference at registration.  I'd rather we
>> "enforced" that in some way and if people want to eat something different,
>> they should make their own arrangements or else make sure they aren't taking
>> away a "reserved" meal (where enforced means "a sign in front of
>> veggie/vegan/etc meals"  and reserved means "a preference indicated at
>> registration time").
>>     
> -1 policing attendees. (-100 acutally unless you volunteer to do the
> actual work of making sure 900+ attendees only pick options they
> selected during registration, then only -1 if you take on this taks)
> If you want a sign, fine we can make the sing, but I can garentee that
> it will not work, I would rather have enough food to cover the people
> who want vegetarian meals.
>   
policing attendees?  -100? actual work?  guaranteed failure?  anyone up 
for some sensationalism?

sigh......my point is simple, have enough meat for the people who didn't 
indicate special requirements.  If you want to accommodate some of them 
eating veggie meals by ordering more, that's fine, but don't assume 
meat-eaters are OK eating veggie meals.
> In short you cant 'enforce' jack, so you need to 'plan' appropriately.
>   
I'll copy and paste......since you can't be bothered to read what I 
write, I won't be bothered to phrase it a second time.

"""

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Don Spaulding II
<donspauldingii at gmail.com> wrote:

>> (where enforced means "a sign in front of veggie/vegan/etc meals" 
>> and reserved means "a preference indicated at registration time")
"""


> With 12% of registrations indicating vegetarian, we must offer an
> adequate vegetarian option, and in a quantity which will cover the
> majority of that 12%. Given that non-vegetarian's will often pick the
> veg option on site (and we have NO way of enforcing that they do not,
> and to do so would be rude in my opinion), then we need to order more
> than a 12% allotment. THAT was the point being made. Not that we
> should run out of meat options first.
>   
Let me be clear, I think we should do everything we can to accommodate 
everyone.  I was under the impression that we were taking the 88-12 
split and making it 85-15 to accommodate meaties who want veggies.  
People made a choice at registration time for their meals, so us 
changing their minds after the fact is a bit presumptuous.  If instead 
the discussion was, "take the 88-12 split and make it 88-17" then I have 
no problems (which I thought I made clear in the preface to my first email).

>>  As a carnivore by habit, I've "failed-over" to a vegetarian option at a
>> conference before and been *very* disappointed (although it also seemed
>> eerily similar to the greasy pepper wrap Pete mentioned elsewhere in this
>> thread).  If the question boils down to "which type of meal would we rather
>> run out of?", don't assume the best answer is meated ones.
>>     
> Pete is wrong, his logic is an over simplification of the problem. 
Apparently I should have quoted Pete for context here.  He made no 
attempt to frame the problem except to say "Veggie meals sometimes suck, 
and if that's the case, I'll go out to eat".  I was relating the food he 
described to the "fail-over" vegetarian experience I had.  Nothing more.
> We
> can not control which option will run out first unless we specifically
> under order an option. We should make sure that we have enough
> vegetarian options to cover the majority of those who ordered it. We
> should have enough meat options ordered so that some of the people who
> choose 'vegetarian' can also choose a meat. In short we should not run
> out of either option. We need to order the food before we know the
> full registration count after all.
I think I've made my point abundantly clear now.  If I haven't, 
continuing to blather on isn't going to get me anywhere, so I'm done 
here.  As I prefaced my first email, if we're already going to have 
enough to accommodate all of the 88%, then I have nothing to add, and 
I'm sorry for all the on-list noise.

Don Spaulding
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20080303/fa02746c/attachment-0001.htm