Back to Details

event-content-repurposing

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Event Content Repurposing

活动内容再利用

You decide what happens to an edition's captured output once a master file already exists.
  • Inputs, every one of them somebody else's output: a published recording, slides, a transcript, a photo archive, hallway notes.
  • Decisions you own: which derivative artifacts get made, in what order, on what cadence, under which licence, and what each speaker is asked to do about the piece cut from their own talk.
  • Outputs you produce: published derivative artifacts, plus a content inventory the next edition's campaign can schedule.
当主文件已经存在时，你决定一届活动捕获输出的后续处理。
  • 输入，每一个都是其他人的产出： 已发布的录音、幻灯片、文字记录、照片存档、走廊笔记。
  • 你拥有的决策： 制作哪些衍生制品、以什么顺序、什么节奏、在何种许可下，以及要求每位演讲者对其演讲中剪辑出的内容做什么。
  • 你产生的输出： 已发布的衍生制品，以及下一届活动营销活动可以排期的内容清单。

Where you start, and the six lines you never cross

起点，以及六条永不可逾越的边界

SiblingOwnsThe line
event-production
Master recording, capture through published fileTake the master as handed over; never re-edit, re-publish, or send a speaker their own link. You begin at the derivative.
event-social-media
The event's own channelsYou decide which derivative exists and when it drops; that skill owns platform, hashtag, copy, and posting.
event-speaker-experience
The consent record, post-event follow-upEnforce the consent record; never collect or re-ask it. You decide only whether the speaker amplifies the derivative.
event-marketing-plan
The attendee-acquisition plan and its funnel targetsRepurposed content is inventory you hand up, never a target you set.
tech-podcast-youtube-channel
Any standing owned-media propertyA one-off derivative is yours; a format outliving any single edition is a property and belongs there.
event-debrief
The organizers' public recapThat skill covers how the edition went; yours covers what was said in the sessions. Write one of each.
Which siblings state the same boundary back, and which do not: references/decision-rationale.md.
Every rung, axis ordering, efficiency line, default and promotion condition in the four menus below is this skill's own construction, not a measured benchmark. Each is a default, not a law: it shifts with context and with who executes it. Re-rank all four menus against what you already know:
  • A volunteer who edits video for a living.
  • An existing subtitling community.
  • An audience that finds the event through search.
  • A speaker with a large following of their own.
  • A consent record that stops at "recording and publication".
Each of these overturns a default rung.
同级skill拥有边界
event-production
主录音、从捕获到已发布文件的流程按交接方式接收主文件；绝不重新剪辑、重新发布，或向演讲者发送其自己的链接。你从_衍生内容_开始。
event-social-media
活动自有渠道你决定哪个衍生内容存在以及何时发布；该skill拥有平台、话题标签、文案和发布。
event-speaker-experience
同意记录、活动后跟进执行同意记录；绝不收集或重新询问。你只决定演讲者是否放大传播衍生内容。
event-marketing-plan
参与者获取计划及其漏斗目标再利用的内容是你上交的清单，绝不是你设定的目标。
tech-podcast-youtube-channel
任何常驻的自有媒体资产一次性的衍生内容属于你；一个超过任何单届活动寿命的格式属于一种资产，属于该skill。
event-debrief
组织者的公开总结该skill涵盖活动的进行情况；你的涵盖会议中_说了_什么。各写一份。
哪些同级skill会同样声明该边界，哪些不会：references/decision-rationale.md。
下面四个菜单中的每一级、轴排序、效率线、默认和提升条件都是本skill自身的构建，而非测量基准。每个都是默认值，而非规则：它会根据上下文和执行者而变化。根据你已知的内容重新排列所有四个菜单：
  • 一位以编辑视频为生的志愿者。
  • 一个现有的字幕社区。
  • 一个通过搜索发现活动的受众。
  • 一位拥有大量自有粉丝的演讲者。
  • 一份仅止于“录制和发布”的同意记录。
其中每一项都会推翻一个默认级别。

Interview

访谈

Ask one question at a time, multiple-choice where possible. Questions 4-6 exist because the menus below diverge sharply on time-to-effect, durability, and effort; those defaults cannot be picked for the user.
  1. What exists to work from and in what state (published master, raw files, slides, transcript, photo archive)? Who handed it over, anything still owed?
  2. Where is the consent record, what does it cover per session format, does it reach derivative works or stop at recording and publication?
  3. What photo opt-out did badges carry, retrievable per photo or only for the room as a whole?
  4. One-off edition, or one year of a recurring event? A compounding mandate promotes every rung whose payoff lands after this edition ends.
  5. Any date anything must land by (campaign moment, sponsor report, partner calendar)? A hard date promotes rungs shipping in one push.
  6. Who owns publishing after the event, how many hours a week, until what date? Decides Menu 1 more than any other answer.
  7. Which sessions did people actually ask about - in the room, in feedback, in chat?
  8. Does the event already run a standing owned-media property with its own audience?
  9. Is search a real route into this event for people who've never heard of it?
  10. Has a licence been decided, and by whom? If nobody has, you are deciding it - say so.
  11. Is the audience multilingual, and did the accessibility work commit to anything that implies text derivatives?
  12. Which speakers, if any, have an audience of their own larger than the event's?
  13. Is this the event's first edition, and does the program include a keynote session?
一次问一个问题，尽可能提供选择题。问题4-6存在是因为下面的菜单在见效时间、持久性和工作量上存在显著分歧；这些默认值不能替用户选择。
  1. 有什么可用的素材，处于什么状态（已发布的主文件、原始文件、幻灯片、文字记录、照片存档）？谁交付的，还有什么未交付？
  2. 同意记录在哪里，它对每种会议形式涵盖了什么，是否涵盖衍生作品，还是止于录制和发布？
  3. 胸牌携带了哪些照片选择退出选项，是针对每张照片可检索，还是仅对整个会场整体？
  4. 是一次性活动，还是重复举办活动的一年？复合任务会在本届活动结束后提升每一级回报落地的rung。
  5. 是否有任何日期是必须完成的（活动节点、赞助商报告、合作伙伴日历）？一个硬性日期会提升一次性交付的rung。
  6. 活动结束后谁负责发布，每周多少小时，直到什么日期？这比其他任何回答更能决定菜单1。
  7. 人们实际问到哪些会议——现场、反馈、聊天中？
  8. 活动是否已经运营了一个拥有自己受众的常驻自有媒体资产？
  9. 对于那些从未听说过该活动的人来说，搜索是否是一条真正的发现路径？
  10. 许可是否已决定，由谁决定？如果没有人决定，那么你在决定它——说明这一点。
  11. 受众是否使用多种语言，无障碍工作是否承诺了任何意味着文本衍生内容的事项？
  12. 哪些演讲者（如果有）拥有比活动本身更大的自有受众？
  13. 这是该活动的第一届吗，议程是否包含主题演讲环节？

What actually splits this work

真正区分这项工作的是什么

One axis reorders every menu below: whether anyone owns publishing after the crew disperses. An owner with a standing weekly slot and an owner with one free afternoon are running two different plans. Every menu below assumes you have asked which one you have.
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-production
names the same risk in its own failure list: a pipeline with no owner after the event, where files are collected, the crew disperses, and the videos are published very late or never.
Community-run against vendor-run moves only who edits, a volunteer with a laptop or a contracted editor, and nothing else on these menus.
一个轴重新排列了下面的所有菜单：在团队解散后是否有人负责发布。一个拥有每周固定时段的所有者和一个拥有一个空闲下午的所有者，运行着两种不同的计划。下面的每个菜单都假设你已询问过自己拥有的是哪一种。
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-production
在其自身的失败列表中提到了同样的风险：活动结束后没有所有者的流水线，文件被收集起来，团队解散，视频很晚才发布或从未发布。
社区运营与供应商运营仅改变_谁在编辑_——一个带笔记本电脑的志愿者或一个签约编辑——而不会改变这些菜单上的其他任何东西。

Workflow

工作流

  1. Take delivery rather than re-doing it. Confirm what 
    event-production
    published and what state the files are in. If the master isn't published yet, stop and wait.
  2. Read the consent record and mark each session usable, restricted, or off-limits before choosing any format: references/rights-and-licence-gate.md.
  3. Pick the derivative mix (Menu 2), driven by Q7's answer, not the running order: references/derivative-catalog-and-release-plan.md.
  4. Pick the publishing latency (Menu 1), pinned to real dates - Q5's deadline and Q6's owner decide this.
  5. Run the rights gate (Menu 4) on each planned artifact before production, not before publication.
  6. Decide and state the licence. Write it on the artifact, not in a spreadsheet.
  7. Build the speaker ask (Menu 3), reusing the shareable kit 
    event-social-media
    already owns.
  8. Hand each scheduled piece to the channel that publishes it, with date and licence line, and stop.
  9. Hand the inventory list up to 
    event-marketing-plan
     - what exists, from what date, in what format.
  10. Record what shipped against what was planned, and where it stalled - the only reliable read on whether the plan was sized correctly.
Present the plan for validation, section by section, before any editing starts:
  1. The usable-session list.
  2. The format mix.
  3. The release dates.
  4. The rights findings.
  5. The licence and the speaker ask.
Everything is cheap to change up to the moment somebody opens an editor.
If your harness has persistent memory, record per edition:
  • Which sessions the consent record covered and which it did not.
  • What was made from each.
  • What shipped on its planned date and what slipped.
  • Which speakers amplified.
  • The licence chosen, and who decided it.
The next edition's plan starts from a real record rather than from these defaults.
  1. 接收交付而不是重新做。 确认 
    event-production
    发布的内容以及文件的状态。如果主文件尚未发布，停下来等待。
  2. 在选择任何格式之前，阅读同意记录，并将每个会议标记为可用、受限或禁止：references/rights-and-licence-gate.md。
  3. 选择衍生内容组合（菜单2），由问题7的答案驱动，而不是会议顺序：references/derivative-catalog-and-release-plan.md。
  4. 选择发布延迟（菜单1），固定在真实日期上——问题5的截止日期和问题6的所有者决定这一点。
  5. 在生产之前，而不是发布之前，对每个计划制品运行权利门禁（菜单4）。
  6. 决定并声明许可。 将其写在制品上，而不是电子表格中。
  7. 构建演讲者请求（菜单3），复用 
    event-social-media
    已经拥有的可分享工具包。
  8. 将每个计划好的内容交给发布它的渠道，附上日期和许可行，然后停止。
  9. 将清单列表上交给 
    event-marketing-plan
     ——存在什么、从什么日期起、以什么格式。
  10. 记录已发布的内容与计划内容的对比，以及在哪里停滞——这是判断计划规模是否正确的唯一可靠依据。
在开始任何编辑之前，逐节呈现计划以供验证：
  1. 可用会议列表。
  2. 格式组合。
  3. 发布日期。
  4. 权利调查结果。
  5. 许可以及演讲者请求。
在有人打开编辑器之前，更改一切都很便宜。
如果你的运行环境有持久记忆，记录每届活动：
  • 同意记录涵盖了哪些会议，没有涵盖哪些。
  • 从每个会议制作了什么。
  • 哪些按计划日期发布，哪些延误了。
  • 哪些演讲者进行了放大传播。
  • 选择的许可，以及谁决定的。
下一届活动的计划从真实记录开始，而不是从这些默认值开始。

Menu 1 - Publishing latency

菜单1 - 发布延迟

When the derivatives drop. This is the menu where the axes genuinely disagree, so it carries two value axes rather than one blended rank.
  • effort (production against a repeating date, coordination, a standing owner, how long the job stays open): 
    drip > evergreen re-surfacing > batched release > all-at-once dump
  • value - sustained presence across the gap to the next edition, which is what 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-marketing-plan
    can schedule against: 
    drip > evergreen re-surfacing > batched release > all-at-once dump
  • value - completion, meaning every artifact you planned actually ships: 
    all-at-once dump > batched release > drip > evergreen re-surfacing
  • efficiency: 
    batched release > all-at-once dump > evergreen re-surfacing > drip
Read the completion axis before the efficiency line. Most plans omit it, and latency ranked on reach alone picks the rung most likely to die halfway. Three reasons it is not a hedge:
  • Post-event energy decays, so the failure named above is not a badly timed release but one that never happens.
  • A dump has already finished by the time a drip is on its second piece.
  • A drip's later half is exactly what an exhausted volunteer team drops.
Dominance audit: vacuous - no strict dominance among the 4 rungs, so the efficiency line rests on the argument above, not on the audit. Full audit: references/decision-rationale.md.
  • All-at-once dump - everything drops in one push soon after the event. One decision, one afternoon; reaches only people already paying attention.
  • Batched release - split into a few waves, write-up first. Costs only scheduling on top of a dump; later waves reach people who missed the first.
  • Drip - one piece per fixed interval over weeks. Needs a piece ready on a date, repeatedly, and an owner until a stated end date.
  • Evergreen re-surfacing - re-posting an existing artifact months later against a newly relevant moment. No new production, but the watch has no end date and almost nobody keeps it.
  • Default rung: batched release.
  • Promotion condition: move to a drip when Q4 says the edition recurs and Q6 names an owner with a standing slot through to a stated end date - both, not either.
  • Demotion condition: fall back to the dump when Q6 returns no owner past the week after the event, or when Q5's deadline lands before a drip could finish.
The starved options are the drip and, behind it, evergreen re-surfacing - both top the sustained-presence axis and both cost real standing attention, so efficiency never picks either.
  • Promote the drip for the compounding mandate above.
  • Promote evergreen re-surfacing on its own separate condition: a talk whose subject becomes newly relevant, where the marginal cost is one scheduled post against an artifact that already exists.
Delete, do not demote: publishing with no dated plan at all - "we will get to it". Delete it from this menu and from the axis lines above.
It reads as the cheapest rung and it is not a rung. It is the failure named above, where the crew disperses and the files are never published. A dump with a date is the floor.
衍生内容何时发布。这是各轴真正分歧的菜单，因此它带有两个价值轴，而不是一个混合排名。
  • 工作量（针对重复日期的制作、协调、常驻所有者、工作保持开放的时间）：
    drip > evergreen re-surfacing > batched release > all-at-once dump
  • 价值 - 跨越到下一届活动间隔的持续存在，这是 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-marketing-plan
    可以排期的依据：
    drip > evergreen re-surfacing > batched release > all-at-once dump
  • 价值 - 完成度，意味着你计划的每个制品实际上都发布了：
    all-at-once dump > batched release > drip > evergreen re-surfacing
  • 效率：
    batched release > all-at-once dump > evergreen re-surfacing > drip
在效率线之前阅读完成度轴。 大多数计划忽略了它，仅根据影响范围排名的延迟会选择最可能在半途夭折的rung。三个理由说明它不是一个对冲：
  • 活动后的精力会衰减，所以上述失败不是发布时机不佳，而是根本没有发布。
  • 当drip进行到第二件时，dump已经完成了。
  • drip的后半部分正是精疲力竭的志愿者团队会放弃的。
支配性审计： 空洞——4个rung之间没有严格的支配关系，因此效率线依赖于上述论证，而不是审计。完整审计：references/decision-rationale.md。
  • 一次性发布（All-at-once dump） - 活动结束后不久一次性全部发布。一个决定，一个下午；只覆盖已经关注的人。
  • 分批发布（Batched release） - 分成几个波次，先发布文稿。在dump之上仅增加排期成本；后续波次覆盖错过第一批的人。
  • 持续发布（Drip） - 数周内按固定间隔发布一件。需要持续在日期前准备好内容，并在声明的结束日期前有一个所有者。
  • 常青重推（Evergreen re-surfacing） - 几个月后针对新的相关时刻重新发布现有制品。没有新的制作，但看守没有结束日期，几乎没有人能坚持。
  • 默认级别： 分批发布。
  • 提升条件： 当问题4说明活动会重复举办_且_问题6指明了一个拥有固定时段直到指定结束日期的所有者时，转移到drip——两者都需要，而不是任一。
  • 降级条件： 当问题6显示活动后一周内没有所有者，或问题5的截止日期在drip完成之前到来时，回退到dump。
被忽视的选项是drip，以及其后的evergreen re-surfacing——两者都在持续存在轴上居于首位，且两者都需要真正的常驻关注，因此效率永远不会选择它们。
  • 为上述复合任务提升drip。
  • 在它自己的单独条件下提升evergreen re-surfacing：一个主题变得新相关的演讲，边际成本是对一个已存在的制品进行一次排期发布。
删除，而非降级：完全没有日期计划的发布——“我们会处理的”。将其从这个菜单和上面的轴线中删除。
它看起来是最便宜的rung，但它不是rung。它就是上面提到的失败——团队解散，文件从未发布。有日期的dump是底线。

Menu 2 - Which derivative to make

菜单2 - 制作哪种衍生内容

Five artifacts, chosen individually rather than as a bundle, because a team rarely has capacity for all of them and the question is which one first.
  • effort (production hours, editing craft, repetition per talk, review): 
    transcript-derived text page > short clips > audio cut > written write-up > social thread
  • value - new reach, meaning people who did not attend and were not already following: 
    short clips > written write-up > transcript-derived text page > audio cut == social thread
  • value - durability, meaning how long it keeps returning value and whether it survives as inventory for the next edition: 
    transcript-derived text page > written write-up > short clips > audio cut > social thread
  • efficiency: 
    written write-up > short clips > social thread > transcript-derived text page > audio cut
The 
==
on new reach is argued rather than a dodge: neither an audio cut nor a thread travels on its own - each reaches only the fraction of an audience the event already has who passes it on. They differ in shelf life, which is why the durability axis separates them and this one does not.
Dominance audit: one strict relation among the 5 rungs - the written write-up dominates the audio cut on both value axes and effort, and ranks above it. The other nine pairs are trades. Full audit: references/decision-rationale.md.
  • Written write-up - one piece covering what the sessions actually said, audience-facing rather than organizer-facing. Reusable as the link that answers "what is this event", which is why it leads on efficiency despite leading on neither value axis outright.
  • Short clips - a cut from the master carrying one moment worth watching without deciding to. Tops new reach because a clip travels through other people's feeds. Finding the moment is the work, not the cut.
  • Social thread from the archive - photos, quotes and links assembled from what already exists. Near-zero effort, near-zero durability, reaches only people who were already there.
  • Transcript-derived text page - the talk as searchable, quotable, translatable text. Tops durability because search keeps finding it long after a feed has moved on. Tops effort too: a correction pass per talk across a programme is a standing job.
  • Audio cut - the talk as audio. Dominated by the write-up and last on efficiency: a one-off audio file with no property behind it has nowhere to land. Stops being dominated once Q8 says a standing audio property already exists - building one is 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@tech-podcast-youtube-channel
    's job.
  • Default rung: the written write-up, plus short clips for the sessions Q7 named.
  • Promotion condition: add the transcript-derived page when Q4 says the edition recurs and Q9 says search is a real route in - one without the other does not repay a per-talk correction pass. Add the audio cut only on Q8's yes.
The starved option is the transcript-derived text page - tops durability, tops effort, so efficiency never picks it.
  • Promotion conditions, keyed to Q11: a multilingual audience, where text is the only derivative that translates at all; or an accessibility commitment made upstream that already implies it.
Delete, do not demote: re-uploading the full session as a "derivative". Delete it from this menu and from the axis lines above. Re-posting the whole talk to a second destination is not a derivative; it is the master again, and 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-production
owns that file and its publication. A second copy under different terms is how a consent record quietly stops matching what is published.
五种制品，单独选择而不是作为捆绑包，因为团队很少有能力制作全部，问题在于先做哪一个。
  • 工作量（制作时间、编辑技艺、每场演讲的重复性、审查）：
    transcript-derived text page > short clips > audio cut > written write-up > social thread
  • 价值 - 新增覆盖，指未参加且未关注的人：
    short clips > written write-up > transcript-derived text page > audio cut == social thread
  • 价值 - 持久性，指它持续回馈价值的时间，以及是否能作为下一届活动的清单存续：
    transcript-derived text page > written write-up > short clips > audio cut > social thread
  • 效率：
    written write-up > short clips > social thread > transcript-derived text page > audio cut
新增覆盖上的 
==
是经过论证的，而非回避：音频片段和线程都不会自行传播——每个都只能覆盖活动已有受众中转发的那部分。它们在保质期上不同，这就是为什么持久性轴将它们分开，而这个轴没有。
支配性审计： 5个rung之间有一个严格关系——书面文稿在两个价值轴和工作量上都支配音频片段，并且排名在其之上。其他九对都是权衡。完整审计：references/decision-rationale.md。
  • 书面文稿 - 一篇覆盖会议实际内容的文章，面向受众而非组织者。可作为回答“这个活动是什么”的链接复用，这就是为什么它在效率上领先，尽管在两个价值轴上都没有完全领先。
  • 短视频片段 - 从主文件中剪出的一个值得观看的瞬间，而无需主动选择观看。在新增覆盖上居首，因为片段通过他人的信息流传播。找到那个瞬间才是工作，而不是剪辑本身。
  • 来自存档的社交媒体线程 - 从已有内容中组合照片、引文和链接。接近零工作量，接近零持久性，只覆盖已经在那里的人。
  • 基于文字记录的文本页面 - 将演讲转化为可搜索、可引用、可翻译的文本。在持久性上居首，因为在一个信息流转移后很长时间，搜索仍能找到它。同时在工作量上也居首：对整个节目每场演讲进行一次校对通过是一项持续的工作。
  • 音频片段 - 将演讲作为音频。被文稿支配且在效率上垫底：一个一次性的音频文件背后没有资产支撑，无处落地。一旦问题8表明常驻音频资产已经存在，就不再被支配——构建一个这样的资产是 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@tech-podcast-youtube-channel
    的工作。
  • 默认级别： 书面文稿，外加问题7提到的会议的短视频片段。
  • 提升条件： 当问题4表明活动会重复举办_且_问题9表明搜索是真正的进入路径时，添加基于文字记录的文本页面——只有其中一个不会回报逐场演讲的校对通过。只在问题8为是时添加音频片段。
被忽视的选项是基于文字记录的文本页面——持久性居首，工作量居首，所以效率永远不会选择它。
  • 提升条件，取决于问题11：多语言受众，其中文本是唯一可翻译的衍生内容；或者上游已经做出的暗含它的无障碍承诺。
删除，而非降级：将完整会议重新上传为“衍生内容”。 将其从这个菜单和上面的轴线中删除。将整个演讲重新发布到第二个目的地不是衍生内容；它又是主文件，
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-production
拥有该文件及其发布。在不同条款下的第二份副本是同意记录悄然不再匹配已发布内容的方式。

Menu 3 - The speaker amplification ask

菜单3 - 演讲者放大请求

Scoped narrowly on purpose:
  • Already owned elsewhere. 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-social-media
    runs its own amplification-ask menu, covering speakers, sponsors and partners for the campaign before the event, and it owns the shareable kit.
  • Covered here. Only the post-event ask about the derivative made from that speaker's own talk.
  • Reuse, never rebuild. Take that kit as it stands and never restate its contents here. The double ownership is on the mechanism, not on the moment.
  • effort (production per speaker, other people's calendars, coordination): 
    dated joint push > ready-made post-event asset > one-line ask on the existing follow-up > no ask
  • value - the speaker actually posts: 
    ready-made post-event asset > dated joint push > one-line ask on the existing follow-up > no ask
  • value - reach when they do: 
    dated joint push > ready-made post-event asset > one-line ask on the existing follow-up > no ask
  • efficiency: 
    one-line ask on the existing follow-up > ready-made post-event asset > dated joint push > no ask
The first value axis rests on one assumption, stated plainly so you can reject it: what decides whether a speaker amplifies is their own effort, not their willingness. If your record of past editions contradicts it, re-rank.
Dominance audit: vacuous - value rises monotonically with effort across the 4 rungs, with one exception (the ready-made asset beats the dated joint push on cost and take-up, blocked only on reach). Full audit: references/decision-rationale.md.
  • No ask - publish, say nothing beyond what 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-speaker-experience
    already sends. Last on efficiency, but the right answer when the consent record does not cover a speaker-facing derivative.
  • One-line ask on the existing follow-up - one sentence riding on the message that sibling is already sending. Coordinate the wording rather than sending your own message.
  • Ready-made post-event asset - the clip plus a drafted caption and link, handed over so the speaker's own effort is near zero. Only the asset is new; the kit's shape is the sibling's.
  • Dated joint push - event and speaker post the same day, cross-tagged. Concentrates both audiences on one moment, and needs someone else's calendar.
  • Default rung: the one-line ask.
  • Promotion condition: move to the ready-made asset for the speakers Q7 named - the sessions people asked about are where amplification returns most - and to the dated joint push only when Q12 names a speaker with an audience larger than the event's and that speaker has already agreed to a date.
The starved option is the dated joint push - tops reach, tops effort, so efficiency never picks it.
  • Promotion conditions, keyed to Q13: a keynote session; or a first edition whose own audience is too small for anything else to matter.
Delete, do not demote: asking a speaker to amplify a derivative they have not seen. Delete it from this menu and from the axis lines above. It is not the cheap version of an ask; it hands a speaker a public commitment to a cut they have never watched, and the one thing you cannot undo is their name on it.
故意缩小范围：
  • 已在其他地方拥有。 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-social-media
    运行自己的放大请求菜单，涵盖活动_之前_的活动中的演讲者、赞助商和合作伙伴，并且它拥有可分享的工具包。
  • 这里涵盖的是。 仅涵盖活动后关于根据该演讲者自己的演讲制作的衍生内容的请求。
  • 复用，绝不重建。 按原样使用该工具包，绝不在此复述其内容。双重所有权在机制上，而不是在时机上。
  • 工作量（每个演讲者的制作、他人的日历、协调）：
    dated joint push > ready-made post-event asset > one-line ask on the existing follow-up > no ask
  • 价值 - 演讲者实际发布：
    ready-made post-event asset > dated joint push > one-line ask on the existing follow-up > no ask
  • 价值 - 当他们发布时的影响范围：
    dated joint push > ready-made post-event asset > one-line ask on the existing follow-up > no ask
  • 效率：
    one-line ask on the existing follow-up > ready-made post-event asset > dated joint push > no ask
第一个价值轴基于一个假设，明确陈述以便你可以拒绝它：决定演讲者是否放大传播的是他们自己的工作量，而不是他们的意愿。如果你过去活动的记录与此矛盾，请重新排序。
支配性审计： 空洞——4个rung之间的价值随工作量单调上升，只有一个例外（现成资产在成本和采用率上优于定日期联合推送，仅因影响范围而受阻）。完整审计：references/decision-rationale.md。
  • 不请求 - 发布，除了 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-speaker-experience
    已经发送的内容外不再说什么。在效率上垫底，但当同意记录不涵盖面向演讲者的衍生内容时是正确答案。
  • 在现有跟进上的一行请求 - 一句话附带在那个同级skill已经在发送的消息上。协调措辞而不是发送你自己的消息。
  • 现成的活动后资产 - 片段加上草拟的标题和链接，移交过去使演讲者自己的工作量接近于零。只有资产是新的；工具包的形状是同级skill的。
  • 定日期联合推送 - 活动和演讲者同一天发布，相互标记。将两个受众集中在同一时刻，并且需要他人的日历。
  • 默认级别： 一行请求。
  • 提升条件： 对于问题7提到的演讲者，转移到现成资产——人们问到的会议是放大传播回报最大的地方——并且仅在问题12指出一个拥有比活动更大受众的演讲者且该演讲者已经同意一个日期时，转移到定日期联合推送。
被忽视的选项是定日期联合推送——影响范围居首，工作量居首，所以效率永远不会选择它。
  • 提升条件，取决于问题13：主题演讲环节；或者一个自有受众太小以至于其他任何事都不重要的首届活动。
删除，而非降级：要求演讲者放大传播他们没看过的衍生内容。 将其从这个菜单和上面的轴线中删除。它不是请求的廉价版本；它让演讲者对一个他们从未看过的剪辑做出公开承诺，而唯一无法撤销的是他们名字出现在上面。

Menu 4 - Rights and consent review depth

菜单4 - 权利与同意审查深度

Ranked by compliance cost only, never by value or effort and never in money: these rungs are descriptions of how much unreviewed surface a given artifact republishes, not competing ways to buy the same outcome. A blended ratio here would read as a recommendation to take the cheap one, exactly the wrong reading.
  • compliance cost (the review it triggers, and what stops being reversible): 
    a derivative containing identifiable attendees > a derivative carrying third-party material > a cleared-only derivative
  • Cleared-only derivative - built solely from material the consent record already covers, with no third-party content and no identifiable attendee. One check, already done upstream.
  • A derivative carrying third-party material - someone else's logo or chart on a slide, music under a demo, another company's interface on screen. Triggers a clearance question nobody in this collection owns (see below); reversible - a complaint or platform action removes the file, and the piece can be re-cut without those frames.
  • A derivative containing identifiable attendees - a room shot, a hallway photo, a face in the background of a clip. Tops this axis because permission cannot be reconstructed afterwards: the badge opt-out is a signal collected in a moment that has passed. Check it before production, not before publication.
Enforce, never define. Speaker consent is 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-speaker-experience
's; do not infer it from the absence of an objection. Attendee photos run through the badge-based opt-out mechanism owned by 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-accessibility-inclusion
; read that signal, do not invent a second one.
Two gaps this skill names rather than closes:
  • Third-party material in slides. Nobody owns clearance for it. This skill runs a minimal checklist gate before a clip is cut, and that checklist is its own construction, not a clearance procedure.
  • Derivative-works scope in the release itself. Most releases stop at publication and say nothing about a later re-cut. Route that gap to 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-speaker-experience
    rather than reading a permission into silence.
Checklist, quotes, wording and the escalation path: references/rights-and-licence-gate.md.
仅按合规成本排序，绝不按价值或工作量，也绝不按金钱：这些rung描述的是给定制品重新发布了多少未经审查的表层内容，而不是购买相同结果的竞争方式。这里的混合比例会被解读为推荐选择便宜的那一个，这完全是错误的解读。
  • 合规成本（它触发的审查，以及什么变得不可逆转）：
    a derivative containing identifiable attendees > a derivative carrying third-party material > a cleared-only derivative
  • 仅批准内容衍生品 - 仅由同意记录已涵盖的材料构建，没有第三方内容，也没有可识别身份的与会者。一项检查，已在上游完成。
  • 包含第三方材料的衍生品 - 幻灯片上他人的标志或图表、演示下的音乐、屏幕上的另一家公司的界面。触发一个本系列中没有人拥有的许可问题（见下文）；可逆——投诉或平台行动会移除文件，并且可以重新剪辑没有那些帧的片段。
  • 包含可识别身份与会者的衍生品 - 会场镜头、走廊照片、剪辑背景中的面孔。在这个轴上居首，因为事后无法重建许可：胸牌选择退出是在已经过去的时刻收集的信号。在生产之前检查它，而不是在发布之前。
执行，绝不定义。演讲者同意是 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-speaker-experience
的；不要从没有反对意见中推断它。与会者照片通过 
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-accessibility-inclusion
拥有的基于胸牌的选择退出机制运行；读取该信号，不要发明第二个信号。
本skill指出而不是弥合的两个缺口：
  • 幻灯片中的第三方材料。 没有人拥有其许可。本skill在剪辑前运行一个最小检查表门禁，该检查表是它自己的构建，不是许可程序。
  • 发布本身中衍生作品的范围。 大多数发布止于发布，对后续重新剪辑只字不提。将该缺口路由到 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-speaker-experience
    ，而不是从沉默中读出许可。
检查表、引文、措辞和升级路径：references/rights-and-licence-gate.md。

The licence decision

许可决定

No sibling claims the licence, and developer conferences follow no shared convention. The call is yours by default, so make it explicitly rather than by drifting.
This section bounds the choice instead of naming a licence, because there is no convention to name. Decide three things, and record who decided:
  • Whether published derivatives carry an open licence at all.
  • Which licence.
  • Whether it differs between a recording, a transcript and a photo.
One large-conference precedent sits outside the domain: TED licenses its talks under Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 (attribution required, no commercial use, no derivative works). TED is not a developer conference, so treat its choice as one event's own, never as a convention to match.
Write the licence line onto each artifact where a re-user will actually see it.
Two constraints bound the choice. Both are this skill's own reading of the rights position, not legal advice, and neither is optional:
  • You cannot grant more than the consent record gave you. An open licence over a talk whose release covers publication only is a grant you never held.
  • A licence attached to a derivative containing third-party material licenses somebody else's work along with yours.
Where either bites, publish without an open licence and say so.
没有同级skill主张许可权，开发者会议也没有共享的惯例。默认情况下决定权在你手中，所以要明确做出决定，而不是随波逐流。
本节限定选择范围，而不是指定许可，因为没有惯例可指定。决定三件事，并记录谁决定的：
  • 已发布的衍生内容是否完全携带开放许可。
  • 哪种许可。
  • 是否在录音、文字记录和照片之间有所不同。
一个大型会议的先例存在于该领域之外：TED 以知识共享 BY-NC-ND 4.0（要求署名、禁止商业使用、禁止衍生作品）授权其演讲。TED 不是开发者会议，因此将其选择视为某个活动自己的选择，绝不是要匹配的惯例。
在重新使用者实际可以看到的地方，将许可行写在每个制品上。
两个约束限定了选择。两者都是本skill对权利状况的自身解读，不是法律建议，且都不是可选的：
  • 你不能授予超出同意记录所给予的权限。 对一份发布仅涵盖出版的演讲授予开放许可，是你从未拥有的授权。
  • 附加在包含第三方材料的衍生品上的许可，会连同你的作品一起许可他人的作品。
在任一情况发生时，在不使用开放许可的情况下发布，并说明原因。

Failure modes

失败模式

  • Re-publishing the master under a new name. A full-session re-upload is 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-production
    's file, not a derivative. It splits the archive, and the second copy is the one whose terms nobody checks.
  • Sending the speaker their video link. Two siblings already claim it: 
    event-production
    in its post-event pipeline, and 
    event-speaker-experience
    in its post-event follow-up. Your message is about the derivative and nothing else.
  • Inferring derivative rights from a publication grant. A release covering "recording and publication" did not license a re-cut. Route the gap upstream; do not close it by assumption.
  • Using an attendee photo because nobody objected. The opt-out was a signal given at the badge table and it does not renew. Silence at publishing time is not permission.
  • Attributing a photo norm to the code of conduct. Its text names harassing photography only. Reading a consent mechanism into it invents a policy the event never adopted.
  • Planning a drip nobody owns. The rung needs a person and an end date. Without both it is a dump that ships half of itself.
  • Quoting a turnaround as an industry norm. A release grants a permission, not a publication date. Publish your own date as your own promise.
  • Writing a recap that competes with the debrief's. Two documents about the same edition, one about the sessions and one about the organizing, are fine. One document trying to be both serves neither reader.
  • Setting a view target. A number nobody measured becomes the thing the plan is judged on.
  • 以新名称重新发布主文件。 完整会议重新上传是 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-production
    的文件，不是衍生内容。它分裂了存档，而第二份副本是没人检查其条款的那份。
  • 向演讲者发送他们的视频链接。 两个同级skill已经声明了这一点：
    event-production
    在其活动后流程中，
    event-speaker-experience
    在其活动后跟进中。你的消息只关于衍生内容，而不是其他。
  • 从出版授权中推断衍生权利。 一份涵盖“录制和出版”的发布并未授权重新剪辑。将缺口路由到上游；不要通过假设来弥合它。
  • 因为没有人反对而使用与会者照片。 选择退出是在胸牌桌给出的信号，不会更新。发布时的沉默不是许可。
  • 将照片规范归于行为准则。 其文本仅涉及骚扰性摄影。从中解读出同意机制，是发明了活动从未采纳的政策。
  • 计划一个无人拥有的drip。 该rung需要一个人和一个结束日期。两者缺一，它就是一个只发布了一半的dump。
  • 将周转时间引用为行业规范。 发布授予的是许可，而不是发布日期。将你自己的日期作为你自己的承诺来发布。
  • 写一篇与debrief竞争的总结。 关于同一届活动的两份文档，一份关于会议，一份关于组织，是可以的。一份试图同时做到两者的文档对两类读者都没有用。
  • 设定观看量目标。 一个没人测量过的数字成为计划被评判的内容。

Measurement

衡量

This skill sets no numeric threshold on views, retention or engagement for conference-talk derivatives, and refuses to invent one. A target imported from a video platform's marketing material would read as domain evidence and be defended as such.
Two completeness gates carry the weight instead. Both are self-set, and both are checkable without a threshold to argue about:
  • Every published derivative traces to a session the consent record covers, and every session outside it is marked unusable rather than left ambiguous.
  • Every planned artifact has a date and an owner, and both existed before production started.
Beyond those, everything is self-set. Pick two, write down before publishing what each would change next edition:
  • Shipped against planned, by date (self-set): the single most honest read on whether the latency rung was sized for the team you actually have.
  • Where the pipeline stalled (self-set): at editing, at the rights check, at scheduling, or at the channel. The category recurs; the individual delay does not.
  • Amplification take-up (self-set): speakers who posted, over speakers asked. A low rate diagnoses the ask, not the speakers - usually an ask that arrived without the asset attached.
  • Inventory available to the next campaign (self-set): what 
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-marketing-plan
    could actually schedule when it asked. An edition that produced nothing repurposable has nothing to promote the next one with.
本skill对会议演讲衍生内容的观看量、留存率或互动不设置数字阈值，并拒绝发明一个。从视频平台的营销材料中引入的目标会被视为领域证据，并因此被辩护。
两个完整性门禁取而代之承担了重量。两者都是自行设定的，并且都可以在不争论阈值的情况下检查：
  • 每个已发布的衍生内容都可追溯到同意记录涵盖的会议，其外的每个会议都被标记为不可用，而不是保持模糊。
  • 每个计划制品都有日期和所有者，并且两者在生产开始前就已存在。
除此之外，一切都是自行设定的。选择两个，在发布前写下每个会在下一届活动改变什么：
  • 按日期对照计划的发布情况（自行设定）：关于延迟rung是否为你实际拥有的团队而设的唯一最诚实的解读。
  • 流水线在哪里停滞（自行设定）：在编辑、权利检查、排期或渠道。类别会重复；个别延迟不会。
  • 放大传播采纳率（自行设定）：已发布的演讲者 / 被请求的演讲者。低比率诊断的是请求本身，而不是演讲者——通常是请求发送时没有附带资产。
  • 可提供给下一届活动的清单（自行设定）：
    samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-marketing-plan
    在请求时实际可以排期的内容。一个没有产生任何可再利用内容的活动中，没有东西可以用来推广下一届。

Invocation examples

调用示例

  • "The videos are up. What do we make from them, and in what order?"
  • "Should we drop everything at once or release one talk a week?"
  • "A clip we want to cut has a Spotify player visible in the demo. Can we publish it?"
  • "What do we ask speakers to do once their clip is live?"
  • "Do we put a Creative Commons licence on our talk recordings, and which one?"
Expected output: the usable-session list with each session marked against the consent record, the derivative mix with the reason each format was chosen, a dated release plan with its owner, the rights findings per planned artifact, the licence decision with who made it, the speaker ask with its asset, and the inventory list handed up to the marketing plan.
  • “视频已经上线了。我们从中制作什么，按什么顺序？”
  • “我们是应该一次全部发布，还是每周发布一个演讲？”
  • “我们想剪的片段在演示中有一个Spotify播放器可见。我们能发布它吗？”
  • “一旦演讲者的片段上线，我们要求他们做什么？”
  • “我们要在演讲录音上放置知识共享许可吗，哪一个？”
预期输出：可用会议列表，每个会议都对照同意记录进行了标记；衍生内容组合，包含选择每种格式的原因；有日期的发布计划及其所有者；每个计划制品的权利调查结果；许可决定及其决定者；带有资产的演讲者请求；以及移交给营销计划的清单列表。

References

参考

  • references/derivative-catalog-and-release-plan.md - each derivative format with what it is made from and what it actually costs, a worked release plan with its negative counterpart, the handover list to the channel sibling, and the inventory format handed up to the marketing plan.
  • references/rights-and-licence-gate.md - the per-session consent check, the derivative-works question and where to route it, the third-party-material checklist as a claimed gap, the attendee-photo check, and the licence decision with its two binding constraints.
  • references/derivative-catalog-and-release-plan.md - 每种衍生格式及其制作材料和实际成本，一个完整的发布计划及其反面示例，移交给渠道同级skill的交接列表，以及移交给营销计划的清单格式。
  • references/rights-and-licence-gate.md - 逐会议同意检查、衍生作品问题及其路由位置、作为主张缺口的第三方材料检查表、与会者照片检查，以及带有两个有约束力约束的许可决定。