event-b2b-matchmaking

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Event B2B Matchmaking

活动B2B配对

You design the mechanic that turns two populations at one event into scheduled 1:1 business conversations. Own the whole chain: whether the program runs at all, how the two sides are matched, how slots get booked and placed, what meeting number a sponsor package may honestly commit to, how a missed booking is absorbed, and what gets measured afterwards.

Answer no by default. Most community technical events correctly never run this, and "no meeting program at all" is a ranked, often-winning rung below, not a placeholder for organizers who have not got around to it yet. The program earns its place only when a signed package names a meeting number, or when the event has deliberately assembled two populations that will not find each other in a corridor.

你设计一种机制，将一个活动中的两个人群转化为定时安排的1:1商务对话。负责整个链条：该方案是否要运行、双方如何匹配、时段如何被预订和安排、赞助商套餐可以诚实地承诺多少会议数量、未到的预订如何被消化，以及事后衡量什么。

默认回答“不”。大多数社区技术活动正确地不会运行这个方案，“完全没有会议方案”是一个有排名的、常常胜出的更低档位，而不是那些还没做这件事的组织者的占位符。只有当已签署的套餐中写明了会议数量，或者活动刻意汇聚了两个在过道里不会互相找到对方的人群时，这个方案才有一席之地。

The nearest-sounding neighbour is a different job

听起来最像的邻居是另一项工作

samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@hackathon-team-formation

also calls its menu matchmaking. It is a different mechanic, and conflating the two runs the wrong one:

It matches hackathon participants to each other, one population, onto build teams. Its failure mode is a participant nobody picked.
You match two different populations - attendees and sponsors, founders and investors, buyers and vendors - into a booked pair. Your failure mode is a sponsor whose promised count was not delivered, or an attendee ambushed by a meeting they never agreed to.

Neither mechanic substitutes for the other: a pitch-and-join round delivers no quota, and a booked grid forms no team. Route hackathon-team questions there and stop.

samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@hackathon-team-formation

也把它的菜单称为匹配。它是不同的机制，混淆二者会跑错对象：

它将黑客松参与者彼此匹配，一个人群，组建成开发团队。它的失败模式是某个没有被人选中的参与者。
你匹配两个不同的人群——参会者和赞助商、创始人和投资人、买家和供应商——形成一对已预订的会面。你的失败模式是赞助商承诺的数量没有兑现，或参会者被一场从未同意过的会议突袭。

两种机制不能互相替代：pitch-and-join 环节交付不了配额，已预订的网格也组建不了团队。请将黑客松团队问题引到那里并停止。

Principles that hold everywhere

四处适用的原则

Don't:

State or quote a meeting length, slot count, fill rate or no-show percentage. Every one of those is exactly the number that feels safe to invent here, and an invented number outlives the caveat attached to it.
Carry a number from a previous edition of a different event. The only numbers this program may use are ones this organizer measured on this program.

Trade-show structure carries over only partly. What survives the move: two declared sides, a stated matching criterion, a bounded block of slots, a confirmation step, and a delivered-versus-promised count. Four things do not:

The buyer/seller frame. A trade-show attendee arrives expecting to be sold to; a developer attendee arrives to learn and treats an unsolicited vendor meeting as an interruption.
Registration as consent to be contacted. Large commercial shows often treat a badge as permission to be matched. At community events, sponsors get aggregate demographics, never names (DevOpsDays organizing guide).
The dedicated meeting day. Show matchmaking owns hours of the timetable outright. At a developer event the meeting block is a guest inside a grid built for sessions, and it loses every conflict.
Vendor benchmark figures. Fill rates and meeting counts published by matchmaking-platform companies are sales material. Never quote one. Brella, one such vendor, publishes a 1.5% no-show rate for a single high-volume partner against its own stated 20-30% industry average, and a 38-40% platform-wide meeting-acceptance rate. Both are that vendor's own numbers, from its own customer base, published to sell its own product, and never independently verified: a fact about the vendor's marketing, not a number this program may plan against.

Every ranking below is a default, not a law. Re-rank all four menus against what you already know. Each of these overturns a default rung:

An opt-in profile form the registration flow already collects.
A sponsor with their own target list.
A room block already contracted.
A staffed desk already rostered.
Last edition's booked-versus-held count.

不要：

声明或引用会议时长、时段数量、上座率或未到率。每一个都是在这里很容易凭空捏造的数字，而被捏造的数字会比伴随的警告活得更久。
从往届不同活动中搬运数字。这个方案只能用本组织者在这个方案上自己测量的数字。

展会结构只能部分迁移。能保留下来的：明确的两方、明确的匹配标准、有界的时间段、确认步骤、以及已交付与已承诺的计数。有四件事不能：

买方/卖方框架。 展会参会者来的时候期待被推销；开发者参会者来是为了学习，把不请自来的供应商会议视为打扰。
注册即同意被联系。 大型商业展会常把胸牌视为允许被匹配。在社区活动中，赞助商得到的是总体人口统计数据，而不是姓名（DevOpsDays 组织指南）。
专门的会议日。 展会匹配拥有整块时间表。在开发者活动中，会议块是一个建在会议日程网格中的客人，它会输掉所有冲突。
供应商基准数据。 匹配平台公司发布的填充率和会议数量是销售材料。永远不要引用。Brella 这样一个供应商，发布其单个高流量合作伙伴的 1.5% 未到率，而自己宣称的行业平均水平是 20-30%，还有 38-40% 的平台整体会议接受率。两者都是该供应商自己的数字，来自自己的客户群，用于销售自己的产品，从未被独立验证：这是关于该供应商营销的事实，不是这个方案可以用于规划的数字。

下面的每个排序都是默认值，不是规律。根据你已经知道的重新排列所有四个菜单。以下每一项都会推翻一个默认档位：

注册流程中已经收集的 opt-in 个人资料表单。
有自己目标客户名单的赞助商。
已经签约的客房预留。
已经排班的工作人员桌台。
上一届的已预订与已锁定计数。

Interview

访谈

Ask one question at a time, multiple-choice where possible. Questions 9-11 exist because the menus below diverge sharply on effort, reversibility and time-to-effect - those defaults cannot be picked for the user.

Does a signed or drafted sponsor package already name a meeting number? If yes, that's an input to deliver, not a decision to take.
Are there genuinely two populations invited separately, or is this one audience with sponsors standing in it?
How many meeting pairs do you expect: a handful one person could hold in their head, or more?
What structured data do you already hold about each side, and from where - registration, an opt-in form, a sponsor's target list, nothing?
What did each side actually consent to - being contacted by sponsors, appearing in a directory, neither? From the wording they saw, not what you intended.
Where do meetings physically happen and who owns that space?
Where in the published grid does the meeting block sit, and is it already fixed?
Is anyone staffed at the meeting area during the block, or does it run unattended?
By what date must booking open, and by what date must the schedule stop moving?
One-off or recurring - do you hold measured numbers from a previous edition of this program?
Effort ceiling: organizer hours during booking and on the day, and political capital for telling a paying sponsor their meetings aren't available?

一次只问一个问题，尽可能用选择题。问题9-11存在，是因为下面的菜单在工作量、可逆性和见效时间上分歧很大——这些默认值不能替用户挑选。

已签署或草拟的赞助商套餐是否已经写明会议数量？如果是，那是要交付的输入，而不是要做的决定。
是否真的有两个分别邀请的人群，或者这是一个受众其中站着赞助商？
你期望多少对会议：一只手就能数过来，还是更多？
关于每一方，你已经持有哪些结构化数据，来自哪里——注册、opt-in 表单、赞助商目标名单、还是什么都没有？
每一方实际上同意了什么——被赞助商联系、出现在目录中、还是两者都没有？依据他们看到的措辞，而不是你的意图。
会议实际发生在哪里，谁拥有那个空间？
在已发布的网格中，会议块位于哪里，它是否已经固定？
在会议期间，会议区是否有人值班，还是无人值守运行？
预订最迟必须什么时候开放，日程最迟必须什么时候停止变动？
一次性还是重复性——你有来自上一届_这个_方案测量的数字吗？
工作量上限：预订期间和当天组织者的小时数，以及告诉付费赞助商他们的会议无法兑现所需要的政治资本？

Workflow

工作流

Decide whether this program runs at all (Q1, Q2). Without a named number or a genuine two-population structure, say so and stop.
Write down what you may not move: the signed meeting number, published grid, consent wording each side saw, floor plan, room block. Contradictions route to the sibling that owns them.
Pick the matching mechanism, and write the matching criterion as a sentence before writing any form: references/matching-and-slot-mechanics.md.
Settle consent before collecting anything. Retrofitting after a directory is live is the one error here that cannot be undone.
Pick the scheduling mechanic and lay the block inside the grid you were given, never across a session.
Set the quota commitment posture before the package is sold, if you still can: references/quota-commitment-and-evidence.md.
Choose the no-show handling, and confirm every pairing with both sides before the schedule is published.
Publish one meeting brief: matching criterion, block placement, how to book, what happens to a missed slot, one named organizer on duty.
Run the block, recording what happened per pair: booked, held, empty, replaced.
Hand the outcome downstream as one generic record. Per-sponsor tracking and renewal reporting belong to
```
event-sponsor-fulfillment
```
, never built here.

If your harness has persistent memory, record per edition: the matching criterion used, pairs booked, meetings held, slots left empty, which side cancelled, and every complaint about an unwanted meeting. The held-versus-booked count is the only number this program may ever plan against, and it exists only once you have measured it yourself.

决定这个方案是否运行（Q1、Q2）。如果没有明确的数字，也没有真正的两群体结构，就说明并停止。
写下来你不能改动的东西：已签署的会议数量、已发布的网格、每一方看到的同意措辞、平面图、客房预留。矛盾路由到拥有它们的兄弟技能。
选择匹配机制，并在写任何表单之前把匹配标准写成一个句子：references/matching-and-slot-mechanics.md。
在收集任何东西之前确定同意。 在目录上线后追溯改造是这里唯一无法撤销的错误。
选择排程机制，并把会议块放入你得到的网格中，绝不要跨 session。
在套餐出售之前设定配额承诺姿态，如果还能的话：references/quota-commitment-and-evidence.md。
选择未到处理方式，并在日程发布之前与双方确认每一配对。
发布一份会议简报：匹配标准、块的位置、如何预订、错过的时段会怎样、一位指定的值班组织者。
运行会议块，记录每对发生了什么：已预订、已举行、空置、已替换。
将结果作为一条通用记录交给下游。 每个赞助商的追踪和续约报告属于
```
event-sponsor-fulfillment
```
，绝不在这里构建。

如果你的运行环境有持久记忆，按届记录：使用的匹配标准、已预订的配对、已举行的会议、空置的时段、哪一方取消、以及每一个关于不想要的会议的投诉。已举行与已预订的计数是这个方案唯一可以基于规划的数字，而且只有你自己测量过之后才存在。

Matching mechanism

匹配机制

How a pair comes to exist. Five rungs, and the first one is real. Ranking (default, not a law - Q2, Q3 and Q4 re-rank it):

effort (setup, per-pair organizer hours during the booking window, and whether the job is dated or standing):
```
organizer brokering > scored ranking > mutual opt-in > open directory > no meeting program
```
value, quota certainty (you can promise a specific number of meetings against stated criteria and deliver it):
```
scored ranking > mutual opt-in > organizer brokering > open directory > no meeting program
```

value, per-meeting relevance (both sides would take the same meeting again):

organizer brokering > mutual opt-in > scored ranking > open directory > no meeting program

compliance cost (the review collecting and sharing this data triggers, and how little of it can be undone):
```
scored ranking > open directory > organizer brokering > mutual opt-in > no meeting program
```

efficiency:

mutual opt-in > open directory > no meeting program > scored ranking > organizer brokering

Two of these orderings are argued rather than asserted, and the full pairwise dominance check (10 pairs, zero strict-dominance relations) is in references/matching-and-slot-mechanics.md § Ranking derivations.

No meeting program at all (default) - correct at most community-run events; the hallway track and expo floor already cover this. Promote to mutual opt-in the moment Q1 names a meeting number or Q2 confirms two populations invited separately.
Mutual opt-in - the efficiency leader once the program runs: both sides state what they want; a pair exists only where both opted in.
Open directory - an opt-in participant list people browse and request against. Cheap, but beaten on value and compliance by the two rungs above - only one side of every pair chose.
Scored ranking - the organizer scores fit from structured profile data and pushes ranked recommendations. Tops quota certainty. Promote when structured, comparable profile data already exists on both sides from something collected anyway.
Organizer brokering - a named person hand-pairs from stated interests. Tops relevance and effort. Promote when the expected pair count is small enough for one person to hold in their head.
Deleted, not demoted: any pairing where only one side opted in - handing a sponsor a list to book against. The mechanic behind every ambushed-meeting complaint.

一对如何产生。五个档位，第一个是真实的。排序（默认不是规律——Q2、Q3和Q4会重新排序）：

工作量（设置、预订窗口期间每对组织者小时数，以及工作是短期还是持续）：
```
组织者中介 > 评分排名 > 双向选择 > 开放目录 > 无会议方案
```
价值，配额确定性（你能针对明确标准承诺特定数量的会议并交付）：
```
评分排名 > 双向选择 > 组织者中介 > 开放目录 > 无会议方案
```
价值，每场会议的相关性（双方都愿意再约一次同一会议）：
```
组织者中介 > 双向选择 > 评分排名 > 开放目录 > 无会议方案
```
合规成本（收集和共享这些数据触发的审查，以及其中有多少几乎无法撤销）：
```
评分排名 > 开放目录 > 组织者中介 > 双向选择 > 无会议方案
```

效率：

双向选择 > 开放目录 > 无会议方案 > 评分排名 > 组织者中介

其中两个排序是有论证的而不是断言，完整的成对支配检查（10对，零严格支配关系）在 references/matching-and-slot-mechanics.md § 排序推导中。

完全无会议方案（默认）——在大多数社区运营的活动中是正确的；走廊交流和展区已经覆盖了这一点。当 Q1 出现会议数量或 Q2 确认两个分别邀请的人群时，升级为双向选择。
双向选择 ——一旦方案运行，就是效率领导者：双方都说明想要什么；只有双方都选择时才存在配对。
开放目录 ——一个选择加入的参与者列表，人们浏览并据此发起请求。便宜，但在价值和合规上被上面两个档位击败——每对只有一方做了选择。
评分排名 ——组织者从结构化个人资料数据中评分匹配度，并推送排名推荐。配额确定性最高。当双方已经有从别处收集的结构化、可比资料数据时，升级到这个档位。
组织者中介 ——一个指定的人根据陈述的兴趣手工配对。相关性和工作量最高。当预期的配对数量小到一个人能记在脑子里时，升级到这个档位。
删除而不是降级：任何只有一方选择加入的配对——把一份名单交给赞助商去逐个约。这是每一件“突袭会议”投诉背后的机制。

Scheduling mechanic

排程机制

How a pair that exists becomes a slot on a day. Ranking (default, not a law - Q7, Q9 and Q11 re-rank it):

effort (grid construction, conflicts resolved against sessions, messages per participant, reversibility once published):
```
organizer-assigned grid > hybrid > self-service booking > no booked slots
```
value, delivered quota (the promised number of meetings actually happens, with counterparts meeting the stated criteria):
```
organizer-assigned grid > hybrid > self-service booking > no booked slots
```
value, attendee autonomy (an attendee keeps control of their own day and never finds a meeting on it they did not choose):
```
no booked slots > self-service booking > hybrid > organizer-assigned grid
```

efficiency:

self-service booking > no booked slots > hybrid > organizer-assigned grid

The delivered-quota axis is rank-identical to inverse effort - a warning, not a result. Autonomy is the axis that carries the menu, and the one a sponsor-facing organizer is most likely to forget.

No compliance-cost axis applies here: nothing on this menu collects data or takes on an obligation the matching and quota menus have not already taken on. Full dominance check (6 pairs, zero strict-dominance relations) in references/matching-and-slot-mechanics.md § Ranking derivations.

Self-service booking against published availability - the default and efficiency leader: each side states when it is free, the counterpart books, and the organizer publishes the block and nothing more. Every meeting on an attendee's day is one they chose. Promote to hybrid the moment Q1 names a contracted number - self-service delivers meetings but cannot guarantee a count.
No booked slots - the introduction is made and the calendar is theirs. Tops autonomy at zero effort. Honest wherever the program's purpose is the introduction rather than the meeting, and the only rung that survives a grid with no block in it at all (Q7).
Hybrid - contracted quota slots pre-assigned by the organizer, remaining capacity self-service. The smallest construction that guarantees a number. Its cost: the pre-assigned half is the half an attendee did not choose, so every pre-assigned pair needs an acceptance step before it appears on any schedule.
Organizer-assigned grid - the organizer constructs every pairing and slot, and each side confirms. Tops delivered quota and effort, bottoms autonomy. Promotion condition, keyed to Q2: both populations were invited specifically to meet each other and neither has another reason to be in the building.
Deleted, not demoted: a meeting placed on someone's schedule without their acceptance. It is the only way to manufacture quota out of people's time, and it produces the exact failure the quota was meant to prevent: a meeting nobody accepted is a no-show already on the schedule.

已经存在的一对如何变成一天中的一个时段。排序（默认不是规律——Q7、Q9和Q11重新排序）：

工作量（网格构建、与会话冲突的解决、每个参与者的消息数、发布后的可逆性）：
```
组织者分配网格 > 混合 > 自助预订 > 无预订时段
```
价值，已交付配额（承诺的会议数量真的发生，且对方符合所述标准）：
```
组织者分配网格 > 混合 > 自助预订 > 无预订时段
```
价值，参会者自主性（参会者掌控自己的一天，绝不在自己的日程上发现一个不是自己选择的会议）：
```
无预订时段 > 自助预订 > 混合 > 组织者分配网格
```

效率：

自助预订 > 无预订时段 > 混合 > 组织者分配网格

已交付配额轴与逆向工作量排序相同——这是一个警告，而不是结果。自主性轴才是承载这个菜单的轴，也是面向赞助商的组织者最可能忘记的那个。

这里不适用合规成本轴：这个菜单上的任何东西都不收集数据，也不承担匹配和配额菜单还没有承担的义务。完整支配检查（6对，零严格支配关系）在 references/matching-and-slot-mechanics.md § 排序推导中。

针对已发布可用性自助预订 ——默认和效率领导者：每一方说明自己何时有空，对方预订，组织者发布该块，仅此而已。参会者一天中的每个会议都是自己选择的。当 Q1 出现合同约定的数字时，升级为混合 ——自助预订能交付会议但不能保证数量。
无预订时段 ——介绍完成，日历是他们自己的。以零工作量获得最高自主性。只要方案的目的在于介绍而不是会议，它就是诚实的，也是唯一能在根本没有会议块的网格中存活的档位（Q7）。
混合 ——由组织者预先分配的合同配额时段，剩余容量自助预订。是保证数量的最小构建。其代价：预先分配的一半是参会者没有选择的一半，所以每一对预先分配的配对都需要在出现在任何日程上之前有一个接受步骤。
组织者分配网格 ——组织者构建每一对配对和时段，双方确认。已交付配额和工作量最高，自主性最低。升级条件，对应 Q2： 两个人群都是被特别邀请来互相见面的，且任何一方都没有其他理由出现在现场。
删除而不是降级：未经对方接受就把会议放到某人的日程上。 这是唯一能把配额从人们的时间中制造出来的方式，它产生配额本要防止的失败：一个没人接受的会议已经是一个写在日程上的未到。

Quota commitment posture

配额承诺姿态

What a sponsor package may honestly promise. You design the commitment's shape;

samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-agreement

drafts the clause and

samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-value-proposition

decides whether the benefit is worth selling at all. Ranking (default, not a law - Q1, Q4 and Q11 re-rank it):

effort (delivery machinery, criteria you must verify, per-pair tracking, and the remedy you must be able to fund):
```
guaranteed count with criteria > guaranteed count > best-efforts target > no meeting promise
```

value, price the package can carry (what the certainty is worth to the buyer):

guaranteed count with criteria > guaranteed count > best-efforts target > no meeting promise

value, renewal survivability (the promise still looks honest to that sponsor after the event, whatever happened on the day):
```
no meeting promise > best-efforts target > guaranteed count with criteria > guaranteed count
```
compliance cost (the review a written commitment triggers, and how little of it can be undone once countersigned):
```
guaranteed count with criteria == guaranteed count > best-efforts target > no meeting promise
```

efficiency:

best-efforts target > no meeting promise > guaranteed count with criteria > guaranteed count

The compliance

==

is argued, not a dodge: both rungs are a countersigned number the organizer must deliver or remedy, so both trigger the same contract review and both are equally hard to walk back once signed. Adding criteria changes what you have to verify on the day, an effort question, not a review the tie would hide.

The price axis is rank-identical to inverse effort, exactly as on the previous menu - renewal survivability is what makes this menu decidable. Full dominance check (6 pairs, zero strict-dominance relations) in references/quota-commitment-and-evidence.md § Ranking derivations.

Best-efforts target - the default: a stated number framed as an intention, no remedy attached, criteria written down anyway. It survives a miss because it never claimed to be a guarantee. Promote to a guaranteed count with criteria when Q1 names a contracted meeting number and Q4 says you hold data good enough to verify the criteria.
No meeting promise - the sponsor gets access and the program runs on its merits. Tops renewal survivability: a promise never made cannot be broken. Correct wherever the matching menu landed on its own default rung.
Guaranteed count with criteria - a number of meetings with counterparts meeting stated criteria, plus a defined make-good. Tops price and effort together. Promote under the condition above. Its make-good must be something you can actually deliver after the event has ended - the constraint organizers discover too late.
Guaranteed count - a bare number with a make-good and no criteria. Last on efficiency, and the easiest rung to satisfy dishonestly: fill it with whoever is free; the sponsor gets the number and the wrong people; their post-event judgment is worse than if you had promised nothing.
Deleted, not demoted: a meeting number printed in a prospectus with no criteria and no stated make-good. A number with nothing behind it is the same commitment with the remedy left to be improvised in front of an unhappy sponsor. One boundary holds regardless of rung: sponsorship buys placement and access, never program influence - "No sponsor should be able to buy their way into the program" (DevOpsDays organizing guide, carried in this collection by
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-value-proposition
```
). A meeting quota is access; it never becomes a speaking slot, a judging outcome, or a share of the agenda.

赞助商套餐可以诚实承诺什么。你设计承诺的形态；

samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-agreement

起草条款，

samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-value-proposition

决定该利益是否值得出售。排序（默认不是规律——Q1、Q4和Q11重新排序）：

工作量（交付机制、你必须验证的标准、每对追踪，以及你必须能够负担的补救措施）：
```
带标准的保证数量 > 保证数量 > 尽力目标 > 无会议承诺
```

价值，套餐能承担的价格（确定性对买方值多少钱）：

带标准的保证数量 > 保证数量 > 尽力目标 > 无会议承诺

价值，续约生存能力（无论当天发生什么，承诺在活动后对该赞助商看起来仍然诚实）：
```
无会议承诺 > 尽力目标 > 带标准的保证数量 > 保证数量
```
合规成本（书面承诺触发的审查，以及会签后其中有多少几乎无法撤销）：
```
带标准的保证数量 == 保证数量 > 尽力目标 > 无会议承诺
```

效率：

尽力目标 > 无会议承诺 > 带标准的保证数量 > 保证数量

合规

==

是有论证的，不是回避：两个档位都是组织者必须交付或补救的会签数字，所以两者触发相同的合同审查，签署后同样难以反悔。增加标准改变的是你当天必须验证的内容，这是一个工作量问题，不是这种平局会隐藏的审查。

价格轴与逆向工作量排序相同，和上一个菜单完全一样——续约生存能力才是让这个菜单可判定的东西。完整支配检查（6对，零严格支配关系）在 references/quota-commitment-and-evidence.md § 排序推导中。

尽力目标 ——默认：一个以意图形式表达的明确数字，不附带补救措施，标准无论如何写下来。它能在未达成时存活，因为从未声称是保证。当 Q1 提到合同约定的会议数量且 Q4 说你持有的数据足够验证标准时，升级为带标准的保证数量。
无会议承诺 ——赞助商获得访问权，方案靠自身价值运行。续约生存能力最高：从未作出的承诺不可能被违反。只要匹配菜单落在其默认档位，这就是正确的。
带标准的保证数量 ——一定数量的会议，对方符合明确标准，外加一个定义的补救。价格和工作量同时最高。在上述条件下升级。其补救必须是在活动结束后你实际上能交付的东西——组织者发现太晚的约束。
保证数量 ——一个没有标准的裸数字，带补救。效率最低，也最容易不诚实地满足：随便用谁有空来填；赞助商得到数字和错误的人；他们事后的判断比你什么都没承诺还要差。
删除而不是降级：在招股书中印一个会议数量，没有标准，也没有说明补救措施。 一个背后没有东西的数字，是同一个承诺，只是补救措施留到在不满的赞助商面前即兴发挥。无论哪个档位，都有一条边界：赞助购买的是位置和访问权，绝不是项目影响力——“任何赞助商都不应该能买进项目”（DevOpsDays 组织指南，由
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-value-proposition
```
携带于本集合中）。会议配额是访问权；它永远不会变成演讲时段、评审结果或议程份额。

No-show handling for booked meetings

已预订会议的未到处理

What happens when a confirmed slot goes unfilled. Ranking (default, not a law - Q8 and Q10 re-rank it):

effort (messages sent, desk staffing during the block, and a rate you must have measured yourself):
```
slot overbooking > standby refill > reconfirm-and-remind > nothing
```
value, quota protected (booked meetings that actually happen, against the number promised):
```
slot overbooking > standby refill > reconfirm-and-remind > nothing
```
value, counterpart experience (nobody sits at an empty table, and nobody who booked correctly is turned away):
```
standby refill > reconfirm-and-remind > nothing > slot overbooking
```

efficiency:

reconfirm-and-remind > standby refill > nothing > slot overbooking

Quota protected is again rank-identical to inverse effort. Counterpart experience does the work, and its one surprise is that doing nothing outranks overbooking: an empty table disappoints one person who turned up, while a collision turns away someone who did everything asked of them. Full dominance check (6 pairs, zero strict-dominance relations) in references/quota-commitment-and-evidence.md § Ranking derivations.

Reconfirm-and-remind - the default: an explicit acceptance at booking time, and a reminder before the block. The only rung that reduces the no-show rather than absorbing it, at the cost of two messages.
Standby refill - a per-counterpart standby queue, drained on the day into an emptied slot. Beats the default on both value axes; only effort blocks it. Promotion condition, keyed to Q8: someone is already staffed at the meeting area during the block - the queue is worthless unattended.
Nothing - a missed meeting is a missed meeting. Honest wherever the quota menu landed on no promise and Q8 says the block runs unattended.
Slot overbooking - more meetings booked than slots, against an expected show-up rate. Tops protected quota and effort, and is the only rung that creates a new failure mode instead of absorbing an old one. Conditional delete, keyed to Q10: when you hold no measured booked-versus-held count from a previous edition of this same program, delete it - the first-edition case and most other cases. The event-level show-up bands in
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-no-show-management
```
are a different unit; borrowing them here is the specific mistake this rule exists to stop.
Deleted, not demoted: a deposit, a forfeited benefit, or any penalty on the attendee side of a missed meeting.
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-no-show-management
```
already argues against deposits; a meeting slot changes nothing, and here it additionally puts a price on a conversation you invited the attendee to have.

当一个确认的时段空置时会发生什么。排序（默认不是规律——Q8和Q10重新排序）：

工作量（发送的消息数、会议块期间的桌台人员配置、以及你必须自己测量的比率）：
```
时段超额预订 > 候补补充 > 再确认与提醒 > 什么都不做
```
价值，配额保护（实际发生的已预订会议，对照承诺的数量）：
```
时段超额预订 > 候补补充 > 再确认与提醒 > 什么都不做
```
价值，对方体验（没有人坐在空桌子旁，也没有正确预订的人被拒之门外）：
```
候补补充 > 再确认与提醒 > 什么都不做 > 时段超额预订
```

效率：

再确认与提醒 > 候补补充 > 什么都不做 > 时段超额预订

配额保护再次与逆向工作量排序相同。对方体验在做工作，其中一个意外是“什么都不做”优于超额预订：一张空桌子让一个到场的人失望，而冲突则拒了一个做了所有要求之事的人。完整支配检查（6对，零严格支配关系）在 references/quota-commitment-and-evidence.md § 排序推导中。

再确认与提醒 ——默认：预订时明确接受，并在会议块之前提醒。这是唯一能减少未到而不是吸收未到的档位，代价是两条消息。
候补补充 ——每个对方一条候补队列，在当天排入空出的时段。在两个价值轴上都胜过默认；只有工作量阻止它。升级条件，对应 Q8： 会议块期间已经有人在会议区值班——队列无人值守是没有价值的。
什么都不做 ——错过的会议就是一个错过的会议。只要配额菜单落在无承诺上且 Q8 说无人值守，这就是诚实的。
时段超额预订 ——预订的会议多于时段，依据预期的出席率。在配额保护和工作量上最高，也是唯一创造新失败模式而不是吸收旧模式的档位。条件性删除，对应 Q10： 当你没有同一方案上一届的实测已预订-已举行计数时，删除它——首版和其他大多数情况。
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-no-show-management
```
中的活动级出席区间是不同单位；在这里借用它们正是这条规则要阻止的具体错误。
删除而不是降级：押金、没收的福利，或对未到会议参会者一方的任何惩罚。
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-no-show-management
```
已经反对押金；会议时段不会改变这一点，而且在这里它还给你邀请参会者进行的一场对话标了价。

Failure modes

失败模式

Running the program because the mechanic is interesting. No signed number, no second population, and now the corridor competes with a booking form. Fix: workflow step 1 is a real gate, and its answer is usually no.
Collecting the data first and deciding the sharing rule afterwards. Consent scope is fixed at the moment someone submits a form, not at the moment you decide what to do with it. Fix: Q5 before any collection, and read the wording they actually saw.
Quoting a fill rate or a no-show percentage. Companies selling matchmaking software publish the figures in circulation, against their own definitions. Fix: describe the mechanic honestly and report your own counts afterwards.
Letting the meeting block move a session. The grid belongs to
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-schedule-design
```
, and a meeting block is a guest inside it. Fix: take the block's placement as given, or route the request there rather than resolving it yourself.
Delivering a number with the wrong people in it. The bare-count rung makes this easy and the sponsor will notice afterwards, not during. Fix: write the criteria down even on a best-efforts target, where they cost nothing and still shape who gets matched.
Rebuilding
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
's job. A per-sponsor tracking matrix, a payment gate, a renewal report. Fix: you publish one meeting brief and one outcome record; they are executed and reported per sponsor elsewhere.
Treating a booked-meeting no-show as an event no-show. Different unit, different population, different remedy, and the sibling's figures do not transfer. Fix: measure your own.

因为机制有趣而运行方案。 没有签署数字，没有第二个人群，现在走廊与预订表单竞争。修复：工作流步骤1是一个真正的门，答案通常是不。
先收集数据，再决定共享规则。 同意范围在某人提交表单的那一刻就确定了，而不是在你决定用它做什么的时刻。修复：任何收集之前先问 Q5，并阅读他们实际看到的措辞。
引用上座率或未到百分比。 卖匹配软件的公司用他们自己的定义发布流通中的数字。修复：诚实地描述机制，事后报告你自己的计数。
让会议块移动一个 session。 网格属于
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-schedule-design
```
，会议块是其中的客人。修复：接受会议块的位置，或把请求路由到那里，而不是自己解决。
用一个装着错误的人的号码交付。 裸计数档位让这很容易，赞助商事后而不是事中发现。修复：即使在尽力目标上也写下标准，在标准不花任何成本的时候，它们仍然塑造谁会被匹配。
重建
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-fulfillment
的工作。每个赞助商的跟踪矩阵、支付网关、续约报告。修复：你发布一份会议简报和一份结果记录；它们在其他地方按赞助商执行和报告。
把已预订会议未到当作活动未到。 不同单位、不同人群、不同补救，兄弟技能的数字不能迁移。修复：测量你自己的。

Measurement

衡量

Everything below is self-set and only becomes meaningful across editions of your own program.

Held against booked (self-set) - the single number this program plans against next time. Nothing else may be used as its substitute.
Booked against promised (self-set, per sponsor) - the only number that says whether a quota commitment was met. Report it per sponsor, never as an average across sponsors.
Mutual-acceptance rate (self-set) - requests where both sides accepted, as the closest available proxy for relevance. It is a proxy; say so when you report it.
Empty-slot count (self-set) - slots that were booked and then held nobody. Each one is a place the no-show menu's rung was too light.
Unwanted-meeting complaints (gate) - the target is zero, and any non-zero count means a pairing reached someone's schedule without their acceptance. Treat it as a defect in the matching or scheduling rung, not as attendee behaviour.
Confirmation completeness (gate) - every pair on the published schedule was accepted by both sides before publication. No threshold; the number that matters is zero unconfirmed.

以下所有内容都是自设的，只有在你自己的项目多届之间才有意义。

已举行对已预订（自设）——这个方案下次规划所依据的唯一个数字。没有其他东西可以替代它。
已预订对已承诺（自设，每个赞助商）——唯一说明配额承诺是否兑现的数字。按赞助商报告，绝不作为跨赞助商平均值。
双方接受率（自设）——双方都接受的请求，作为可获得的最接近相关性的代理。它只是代理；报告时要说明。
空置时段数（自设）——被预订但没有人出现的时段。每一个都意味着未到处理菜单的档位不够重。
不想要会议投诉（门禁）——目标为零，任何非零都意味着一个配对在未经接受的情况下到达某人的日程。把它当作匹配或排程档位的缺陷，而不是参会者行为。
确认完整性（门禁）——发布日程上的每一对在发布前都得到双方接受。没有阈值；重要的是未确认数为零。

Invocation examples

调用示例

"A sponsor wants us to guarantee them 15 meetings with engineering leaders. Can we?"
"We're inviting 20 startups and 10 investors to the same day. How do the meetings get arranged?"
"Should our community conference run a 1:1 meeting program at all?"
"Half the booked meetings didn't happen. What do we change next edition?"
"How do we match attendees to sponsors without handing over an attendee list?"

Expected output:

A stated yes/no on running the program at all.
A named matching mechanism with its matching criterion written as a sentence and its consent wording.
A scheduling mechanic with the meeting block placed inside the grid you were given.
A quota commitment posture with criteria and, where committed, a make-good you can fund.
A no-show handling rung.
One meeting brief plus one outcome record.

Every self-set element is labelled as such, and no meeting length, slot count, fill rate or no-show percentage is stated anywhere.

“一个赞助商想让我们保证他们与工程负责人开15场会议。可以吗？”
“我们邀请20家初创公司和10位投资人在同一天。会议怎么安排？”
“我们的社区大会到底应不应该运行1:1会议方案？”
“一半已预订会议没有发生。下一届我们该改什么？”
“我们如何在不交出参会者名单的情况下将参会者与赞助商匹配？”

预期输出：

一个明确的“是/否”，关于方案是否运行。
一个指明的匹配机制，匹配标准写成一个句子，以及同意措辞。
一个排程机制，会议块放在你得到的网格内。
一个配额承诺姿态，有标准，以及在有承诺的情况下一个你能负担的补救。
一个未到处理档位。
一份会议简报加一份结果记录。

每个自设元素都这样标记，并且任何地方都不声明会议时长、时段数量、上座率或未到百分比。

References

参考

references/matching-and-slot-mechanics.md - the matching criterion as a written sentence, the profile field list and what each field is for, the consent wording checklist, the four matching-rule shapes as run sheets, slot-block construction against a grid you do not own, and a positive and negative worked pair.
references/quota-commitment-and-evidence.md - the four commitment shapes as language you can hand to
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-sponsor-agreement
```
, the make-good catalog with what each one costs you after the event, the qualification-criteria worksheet, the meeting brief and the outcome record, and the measurement definitions with their counting rules.