event-press-relations

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Event Press Relations

活动媒体关系

You pursue coverage the event does not control and cannot trade for. Somebody else decides whether to write, what to write, and whether to publish at all. That asymmetry is the whole skill.

Make a "yes" cheap for a journalist or a creator to give. Make two irreversible failures less likely:

A refusal that becomes a public dispute.
A statement that cannot be unsaid.

Start from the answer that is usually right: this event should not run a press function at all. Two major developer-community events have no press accreditation policy.

PyCon US has no current published press page, only a defunct 2013 one.
FOSDEM requires no registration at all - "You don't need to register. Just turn up and join in!" - so "press access" there has no mechanism to grant or deny.

Read that as precedent, not as a gap they forgot to fill.

你追求的是活动无法控制、也无法交换的报道。是否报道、报道什么、是否发布，都是由别人决定的。这种不对称性就是本技能的核心。

让记者或创作者更容易说“好”。减少两种不可逆转的失败发生的可能性：

拒绝演变成公开争执。
说出无法收回的言论。

从一个通常正确的答案开始：这个活动根本不应该设立媒体职能。两个主要的开发者社区活动没有媒体认证政策。

PyCon US 目前没有公开的新闻页面，只有一个2013年的废弃页面。
FOSDEM 根本不需要注册——“你不需要注册。直接来参加就行！”——所以“媒体访问”在那里没有可授予或拒绝的机制。

把这当作先例，而不是他们忘记填补的空白。

What this skill owns, and what siblings own instead

本技能负责什么，其他相关技能负责什么

Barter is not earned coverage. A two-way visibility exchange with a newsletter, podcast or community - logo for blurb, no cash - belongs to
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-media-partnerships
```
, which draws the same line from its side: earned coverage is "a one-way ask the event neither controls nor reciprocates". The moment something is promised back in return for words, hand the task over.
On-site press handling belongs here.
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-vip-management
```
routes it to this skill, which "claims accreditation, embargoes and on-site press handling", while that one keeps only "a guest's own exposure to press". Claim the press room, the interview logistics and the shooting rules; hand back any question about one named guest's own photograph.
The event's own channels are not press. Posting the lineup on the event's accounts is
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-social-media
```
. Buying reach for it is
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-marketing-plan
```
, whose channel menu carries a deliberately lightweight "pre-event press" rung and defers a real campaign here.
Attendee photo and recording consent is an access mechanism, not a press rule. The colour-coded interaction-consent stickers (red: not interested in talking, or in being photographed) belong to
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-accessibility-inclusion
```
, which owns whether they exist and how many.
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-code-of-conduct
```
owns one adjacent line - "Harassing photography or recording." - and nothing else about consent. This skill owns only what press are told about the mechanism, and how it is enforced against a credential.

Policies change yearly and by edition, and staleness carries across every edition you copy from. Web Summit's accreditation page itself reads "Last updated: October 2020". Re-check any policy before adopting its wording.

Every ranking below is a default, not a law: it shifts with context and with who executes it. Re-rank all four menus after the interview, against what you already know about this organizer. Each of the following overturns a default rung:

A team member who is a working journalist.
An outlet that already covered a past edition.
A keynote speaker whose name is itself the news.
A venue with a spare room.

交换不是 earned coverage。 与通讯、播客或社区进行的双向可见性交换——用标志换宣传语，不涉及现金——属于
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-media-partnerships
```
，该技能也从自己的角度划清了同样的界限：earned coverage 是“活动既不控制也不回报的单向请求”。一旦承诺以文字换取任何回报，就把任务移交过去。
现场媒体处理属于本技能。
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-vip-management
```
将其路由到本技能，本技能“负责认证、禁运和现场媒体处理”，而该技能只保留“_嘉宾自己面对媒体_的曝光”。认领新闻室、采访后勤和拍摄规则；把有关某位指定嘉宾自己照片的问题交回去。
活动自己的渠道不是媒体。 在活动账号上发布阵容属于
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-social-media
```
。为其购买流量属于
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-marketing-plan
```
，其渠道菜单中有一个刻意轻量化的“活动前媒体”层级，并将真正的宣传活动推迟到本技能。
与会者拍照和录音同意是一种访问机制，不是媒体规则。 彩色编码的互动同意贴纸（红色：不想交谈或被拍照）属于
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-accessibility-inclusion
```
，由该技能决定这些贴纸是否存在以及数量多少。
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-code-of-conduct
```
负责一条相邻的规则——“骚扰性摄影或录音。”——以及关于同意的其他任何内容。本技能只负责媒体被告知该机制的内容，以及如何对凭证执行该机制。

政策每年都会变化，并且因届次而异，过时性会延续到你复制的每一届。Web Summit 的认证页面本身写着“最后更新：2020年10月”。在采用任何政策措辞之前，请重新检查。

下面的每个排序都是默认值，而不是法律：它会随着背景和执行者而改变。在采访之后，根据你已经了解的组织者信息，重新对四个菜单进行排序。以下每一项都会推翻一个默认层级：

团队成员中有一位在职记者。
一家媒体报道过往届活动。
一位主题演讲者，其名字本身就是新闻。
一个有闲置房间的场地。

Interview

采访

Ask one question at a time, multiple-choice where possible. Questions 6-8 exist because the menus diverge sharply on time-to-effect, durability and effort. Nobody can pick those three defaults for the organizer.

Does any outlet, newsletter, podcast or independent creator cover this event's subject at this scale - name them. If nothing can be named, that answer alone decides Menu A.
Is registration meeting its curve without earned coverage? (Together with Q1 this is the promotion condition for pursuing no press at all.)
Community-run or vendor/company-run, and does any sponsor plan to make its own product news at this event? (Sponsor product news is what forces an embargo posture the organizer does not control.)
In-person, online-only or hybrid, how many days, and is a spare room or a quiet corner available? (Online-only deletes both physical rungs on Menu C.)
Expected attendance this edition, and last edition's figure if there was one.
What is the next calendar beat you would actually announce - CFP, lineup, programme, on-sale, day-of, wrap-up - and its date? Which of them is genuinely news rather than a page going live?
Is this one edition's push, or a relationship you want to compound across editions? (A compounding mandate promotes the slow rungs: a warm outlet list, a pre-brief relationship.)
What is the effort ceiling - organizer hours, how many comped seats you can spare, and who is willing to be the single voice on the record?
Has anyone ever been refused a press pass here, and how was it handled? (A refusal already in the past changes Menu B's default immediately.)
Is the event free and uncapped, or ticketed with a capacity?

一次问一个问题，尽可能提供多项选择。问题6-8的存在是因为菜单在生效时间、持久性和工作量上差异很大。没有人能为组织者选择这三个默认值。

是否有任何媒体、通讯、播客或独立创作者在这个规模上报道该活动的主题——请说出他们的名字。如果什么都说不出来，这个答案本身就决定了菜单A。
注册是否在没有 earned coverage 的情况下达到预期曲线？（与问题1一起，这是完全不进行媒体报道的推广条件。）
是社区运营还是供应商/公司运营，是否有任何赞助商计划在本次活动中发布自己的产品新闻？（赞助商的产品新闻是迫使组织者无法控制的禁运姿态的原因。）
是线下、纯线上还是混合形式，持续几天，是否有闲置房间或安静的角落可用？（纯线上会删除菜单C中的两个物理层级。）
本届预计出席人数，以及上一届（如果有）的数字。
你实际会宣布的下一个日历节点是什么——CFP、阵容、日程、开票、活动当天、总结——以及日期？其中哪些是真正的新闻，而不是页面上线？
这是单届活动的推动，还是你想要跨届累积的关系？（累积的任务会提升缓慢的层级：一个温暖的媒体列表，一个预先简报的关系。）
工作量上限是多少——组织者工时、你能提供的免费席位数量，以及谁愿意作为唯一的公开声音？
这里是否曾有人被拒绝过媒体通行证，是如何处理的？（过去的拒绝会立即改变菜单B的默认设置。）
活动是免费且不限人数，还是售票且有容量限制？

Community-run vs vendor-run

社区运营 vs 供应商运营

Ownership is the axis that moves rungs.

Community-run. PyCon US and FOSDEM publish no accreditation policy at all, and DEF CON runs the lightest interview model there is: "If you are interested in connecting with a speaker for an interview the best process is to reach out to them directly". Lighter rungs are precedent here, not budget constraint.
Vendor/company-run. Sponsors and the organizer both make product news, which forces an embargo posture and a brokered-interview expectation. CNCF-scale events "actively work with media and analyst partners to schedule briefings ahead of and during the conference".

Name which pole a recommendation assumes whenever the two differ.

所有权是移动层级的轴心。

社区运营。 PyCon US 和 FOSDEM 根本不发布认证政策，DEF CON 则采用最轻量的采访模式：“如果你想与演讲者联系进行采访，最好的方式是直接联系他们”。更轻的层级在这里是先例，而不是预算限制。
供应商/公司运营。 赞助商和组织者都会发布产品新闻，这迫使采取禁运姿态和代理采访的预期。CNCF 规模的活动“积极与媒体和分析师合作伙伴合作，在会议之前和期间安排简报”。

每当两者不同时，指出推荐所假设的是哪一端。

Workflow

工作流程

Run the interview. Q1 and Q2 come first: a "nobody" plus a healthy registration curve ends this skill at Menu A's opt-out rung, and every step after it is wasted.
Set the press posture (Menu A). If it is no press function, say so, name where the residual exposure lives - the incident path itself is
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-code-of-conduct
```
's - and stop.
Build the media page before writing any policy, because the policy links to it. Keep it ungated: on large conferences' media pages every element downloads with no registration. Contents checklist, boilerplate rules, brand-asset rules and the past-edition stats that carry an event's credibility: references/press-kit-and-calendar.md.
Write the accreditation policy (Menu B) in plain language, and publish the refusal path with it. Eligibility wording, the proof stack, comp policy, caps and how to refuse without creating a dispute: references/accreditation-policy.md.
Peg announcements to the calendar beats (same reference as step 3). Treat the lineup/schedule reveal as the single highest-leverage earned-media moment of the year, and plan it as a dedicated press moment rather than a page update. Once the contact list is long enough to repay the effort, add two refinements:
- Note against each outlet what it actually publishes: a desk that reprints a plain numbers release, versus one that needs a market or economy angle with data attached. The pitch is then tailored once rather than re-guessed per send.
- Offer one outlet or creator an early, exclusive angle ahead of the blanket release, instead of treating every recipient identically.
Set the embargo posture (Menu D) against Q3 and Q6 - sponsor product news is the usual reason a posture is forced on you.
Set the on-site depth (Menu C) and write the shooting rule before doors, naming what press may film, where, and what the attendee opt-out mechanism is. Press-room specifics, both interview models and the recording rules: references/onsite-and-crisis.md.
Designate one spokesperson and one backup, and brief everyone else that they do not speak to press. Same reference: the four crisis cases and the five principles synthesized from them.
After the edition, harvest the stats into next year's fact sheet, and read each outlet and creator for whether they published at all.
Present section by section - posture, media page, accreditation policy, calendar, embargo posture, on-site, spokesperson - and get explicit approval per section before finalizing.

If your harness has persistent memory, record per edition:

The posture and why.
Who was accredited and who was refused, with the reason.
Which beats were pitched and to whom.
Who actually published.
Every policy quoted, with the date it was checked.

Next edition starts from that instead of re-deriving a policy from other events' pages.

进行采访。问题1和问题2首先出现：一个“没有人”加上健康的注册曲线会在菜单A的选择退出层级结束本技能，之后的每一步都是浪费。
设定媒体姿态（菜单A）。如果是_无媒体职能_，请说明，指出残留风险暴露在哪里——事件处理路径本身属于
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-code-of-conduct
```
——然后停止。
在写任何政策之前先建立媒体页面，因为政策会链接到它。保持无需注册即可访问：在大型会议的媒体页面上，每个元素都可以在无需注册的情况下下载。内容清单、样板规则、品牌资产规则以及承载活动可信度的往届数据：references/press-kit-and-calendar.md。
用通俗的语言编写认证政策（菜单B），并同时发布拒绝路径。资格措辞、证明栈、免费政策、上限以及如何在不引发争执的情况下拒绝：references/accreditation-policy.md。
将公告与日历节点挂钩（与步骤3相同的参考）。将阵容/日程公布视为全年中杠杆率最高的 earned-media 时刻，并将其作为专门的媒体时刻来规划，而不是页面更新。一旦联系人列表足够长，值得付出努力，增加两个改进：
- 针对每个媒体记录其实际发布的内容：一个会原样转载简单数字新闻稿的媒体，与一个需要附带数据的市场或经济角度的媒体。这样推介就可以一次性定制，而不是每次发送时重新猜测。
- 在全面发布之前，向一家媒体或创作者提供早期独家角度，而不是对每个接收者一视同仁。
根据问题3和问题6设定禁运姿态（菜单D）——赞助商产品新闻通常是迫使你采取某种姿态的原因。
设定现场深度（菜单C）并在开门前写出拍摄规则，说明媒体可以拍摄什么、在哪里拍摄，以及与会者的退出机制是什么。新闻室细节、两种采访模式和录音规则：references/onsite-and-crisis.md。
指定一名发言人和一名替补，并告知其他所有人不要对媒体发言。同一参考：四个危机案例和从中综合出的五条原则。
活动结束后，将数据收集到明年的情况说明书中，并检查每个媒体和创作者是否真的发布了内容。
逐节展示——姿态、媒体页面、认证政策、日历、禁运姿态、现场、发言人——并在最终确定前获得每节的明确批准。

如果你的系统有持久记忆，请记录每届活动：

姿态及其原因。
谁获得了认证，谁被拒绝，以及原因。
哪些节点被推介给了谁。
谁实际上发布了内容。
引用的每项政策及其检查日期。

下一届从这些记录开始，而不是从其他活动的页面重新推导政策。

Menu A - press posture

菜单A——媒体姿态

How much press function exists at all, before any specific journalist appears.

effort (organizer hours, standing ownership, published policy, briefing):

dedicated press function > staged build > reactive contact only > no press function

value (earned coverage that reaches the audience this event needs):

dedicated press function > staged build > reactive contact only > no press function

compliance cost (review triggered, reversibility spent):

dedicated press function > staged build > reactive contact only == no press function

efficiency:

reactive contact only > staged build > dedicated press function > no press function

Value and effort run in the same order here, so no pair of rungs can put higher value against lower effort. None of the six pairs yields a strict-dominance relation, and the check finds nothing because it cannot: this menu is clean by construction, not by care, and that is not a pass.

With value rank-identical to effort rank, the efficiency line collapses into cheapest-first among the rungs that buy anything, which is the one ordering a ranking exists to improve on. It therefore rests entirely on each rung's own argument below. A reader who disagrees with one of those arguments has nothing mechanical to appeal to.

The compliance

==

is argued, and it is the one axis carrying information. A reactive contact publishes no criterion anyone can be refused against, and puts one briefed person on the record. No press function publishes nothing either, but the statement still gets made by whichever volunteer is standing nearest the reporter, and it is exactly as unretractable: equal exposure, one assigned and one not.

Reactive contact only - the default. A named press contact and a boilerplate paragraph on the site: answer what comes in, initiate nothing, and name the single voice that speaks while everyone else is briefed to say nothing. That designation costs one sentence and covers the one failure that cannot be reversed, which is why the rung leads on efficiency while buying almost no proactive coverage. Promotion condition: move up one rung when Q6 names a beat that is genuinely news - a keynote whose name is itself the story, a first edition, a venue or format change - and Q1 named at least one outlet or creator who has covered this subject before.
Staged build - an ungated media page, a two-lane eligibility policy, and announcements mapped onto the annual calendar. A growing community event lands here, and most of the material in this skill gets used at this rung.
Dedicated press function - the starved rung: top of value, top of effort, top of compliance cost, so efficiency never picks it. Promotion condition: the event exceeds roughly 500–1,000 attendees - a self-set graduation band, not a measured threshold - or Q3 says vendor sponsors are making their own product news at it. The second trigger fires far more often than the first at a small vendor event.
No press function - nothing published, nobody designated, press treated as ordinary attendees. Last on efficiency, because near-zero effort buying nothing on the axis being measured is a ratio of zero. Promoted to first outright when Q1 names nobody who covers this subject at this scale and Q2 says registration meets its curve without earned coverage - the most common right answer for a community technical event, with direct precedent in both PyCon US and FOSDEM.
- Every rung above it then manufactures a press function for an audience of nobody. The residual incident exposure does not vanish: the reporting and response path is
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-code-of-conduct
```
  's, and what is absent is only a press-facing voice nobody is asking for.
Deleted when Q8 says nobody is willing to be the single voice on the record: the dedicated press function. Delete it from this menu and from the axis lines above. A press operation whose spokesperson slot is empty produces a press conference answered by whoever is nearest, which is the failure the whole rung was bought to prevent.

在任何特定记者出现之前，存在多少媒体职能。

工作量（组织者工时、常设所有权、已发布政策、简报）：
```
专门的媒体职能 > 分阶段建设 > 仅被动联系 > 无媒体职能
```

价值（触达该活动所需受众的 earned coverage）：

专门的媒体职能 > 分阶段建设 > 仅被动联系 > 无媒体职能

合规成本（触发的审查、花费的可逆性）：

专门的媒体职能 > 分阶段建设 > 仅被动联系 == 无媒体职能

效率：

仅被动联系 > 分阶段建设 > 专门的媒体职能 > 无媒体职能

这里价值和工作量的顺序相同，所以没有任何一对层级可以用更低的工作量换取更高的价值。六对组合中没有一对产生严格支配关系，检查没有发现任何结果是因为它不可能：这个菜单是构造上干净的，而不是通过注意，这不是通过。

由于价值排名与工作量排名完全相同，效率线坍缩为在能买到任何东西的层级中按最便宜优先排序，这正是排名存在所要改进的唯一排序。因此，它完全依赖于下面每个层级自身的论证。不同意其中某个论证的读者，没有任何机械性的东西可以求助。

合规

==

是经过论证的，它是唯一承载信息的轴。仅被动联系不会发布任何人都可以据此被拒绝的标准，但会让一个受过简报的人公开表态。无媒体职能也不发布任何内容，但声明仍然会由离记者最近的志愿者做出，而且同样不可撤回：相同的曝光，一个是指定的，一个不是。

仅被动联系——默认。一个指定的媒体联系人和网站上的一个样板段落：回答收到的询问，不主动发起任何事，并指定唯一发言的声音，同时告知其他人保持沉默。这个指定只花一句话，却涵盖了唯一无法逆转的失败，这就是为什么这个层级在效率上领先，但几乎不购买任何主动报道。提升条件：当问题6指出一个真正是新闻的节点——一个名字本身就是故事的主题演讲、首届活动、场地或形式变化——_并且_问题1指出了至少一家以前报道过该主题的媒体或创作者时，提升一个层级。
分阶段建设——一个无需注册的媒体页面、一个双轨资格政策，以及映射到年度日历上的公告。一个成长中的社区活动落在这里，本技能的大部分材料在这个层级使用。
专门的媒体职能——被饿死的层级：价值最高、工作量最高、合规成本最高，所以效率永远不会选择它。提升条件：活动规模超过大约500-1000名与会者——一个自行设定的毕业区间，而不是一个测量阈值——_或者_问题3表明供应商赞助商正在活动中发布自己的产品新闻。第二个触发因素在小规模供应商活动中远比第一个常见。
无媒体职能——什么都不发布，不指定任何人，媒体被当作普通与会者对待。在效率上排名最后，因为接近零的工作量在衡量轴上买到的东西为零，这是一个零的比率。当问题1说没有人以这种规模报道该主题，且问题2说注册在没有 earned coverage 的情况下达到曲线时，直接提升到第一位——这是社区技术活动最常见的正确答案，在 PyCon US 和 FOSDEM 都有直接先例。
- 它上面的每个层级都是在为没有受众的媒体职能制造存在理由。残留的事件暴露并不会消失：报告和响应路径属于
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-code-of-conduct
```
  ，缺少的只是一个没人要求的面对媒体的声音。
当问题8说没有人愿意作为唯一的公开声音时，删除：专门的媒体职能。 把它从这个菜单和上面的轴线上删除。一个发言人位置空缺的媒体运营会产生一个由最近的人回答的新闻发布会，这正是购买整个层级所要防止的失败。

Menu B - accreditation breadth

菜单B——认证范围

Who gets a credential, and against what published bar.

effort (policy drafting, per-application screening, refusal handling):

outlets plus creators with a stated bar > traditional outlets only > open > none

value (coverage reaching the developer audience, from people who will actually publish):
```
outlets plus creators with a stated bar > open > traditional outlets only > none
```

compliance cost (review triggered, reversibility spent):

traditional outlets only == outlets plus creators with a stated bar > open > none

efficiency:

open > outlets plus creators with a stated bar > traditional outlets only > none

Dominance check - clean by care. Value and effort disagree on exactly one of the six pairs, which yields one strict-dominance relation: open beats traditional outlets only on value while costing less effort. The efficiency line has to place open above it, and it does. The other five pairs have value and effort rising together, so a ratio decides them rather than dominance.

State that one relation out loud, because it runs against instinct. A proof-heavy journalists-only policy at a developer event loses on both halves at once:

On value, it excludes by definition the constituency that most reliably reaches developers.
On effort, it costs more to administer than letting everyone in, because every application must be screened against a proof stack.

The compliance

==

is argued. Both lettered rungs publish a criterion that a refused applicant can quote back publicly, and neither refusal can be un-made once they post about it. Adding a creator lane doubles the paperwork, not the class of exposure.

This menu starves nothing, and that is a finding rather than an omission. The usual casualty of an efficiency order is the rung that tops both value and effort, since it loses every round. Here the value leader (outlets plus creators with a stated bar) also leads on effort, yet still finishes second on efficiency, close enough to the default that the promotion condition below reaches it in one step.

Nothing on this menu is both worth having and permanently unreachable, so there is no starved option to name and no rescue condition to write.

Open - the default: anyone who says they are covering the event and names where it will run gets a comped seat. No proof stack, no second form, near-zero effort - and at a small community event where three people ask, it is what already happens. Promotion condition: move up one rung the first time applications exceed the comped seats Q8 says are available, or at the first refusal (Q9) - a refusal with no published criterion is the dispute this menu exists to avoid.
Outlets plus creators with a stated bar - two lanes in plain language, reviewed separately: a Press lane for editorial journalists and freelancers on assignment, and a Creator lane for bloggers, podcasters and video creators. SXSW runs exactly this split with two different intake forms - "Submit the Press Application if your primary work is editorial journalism... Submit the Content Creator Application". Set the creator bar yourself and publish it, and read the warning below before borrowing anyone else's number.
Traditional outlets only - the editorial-journalist lane with the commercial exclusions and the proof stack. RSA Conference's published line is "Those with sales, social media, marketing or account management roles will not be considered for press [accreditation]", and MWC/GSMA requires 4–5 relevant bylined articles published within the last three months plus, for freelancers, a valid assignment letter - "A press card alone will not be accepted as press credentials". It costs the most administration of the two mid rungs and buys the least developer reach, which is why the dominance relation lands on it.
None - no accreditation, no comped press seats, reporters attend on whatever ticket exists. Last on efficiency at a ticketed event, where it means a reporter pays or does not come. Promoted to first outright when Q10 says the event is free and uncapped: a reporter simply walks in, exactly as at FOSDEM, and an accreditation process would be a form standing in front of an open door.
Deleted when Q8 says there are no comped seats to spare at all: open. Delete it from this menu and from the axis lines above. Open accreditation whose comp promise cannot be honoured produces an accepted applicant turned away at the desk, which is a worse refusal than a policy-based one and lands on the day rather than in advance.

⚠️ On borrowing a creator threshold. MWC Barcelona (GSMA) publishes a quantitative creator bar - 100,000 or more subscribers or followers, and videos averaging 2,500 views. That is one event's bar for its own creator lane at MWC's scale. Never present it as a standard, and never transfer it to a community event's policy. Set a bar proportionate to your own audience, and say it is yours.

Never set the creator bar below the press lane's. MWC/GSMA, IBIE Baking Expo, IFEBP and ALA all hold the creator lane to the stricter bar: every published policy with a separate creator lane asks for an equal or higher level of verification than editorial press. The creator lane asks for a follower or view threshold, a minimum traffic count, or a year of on-topic publishing history, where the press lane asks only for a byline or an assignment letter.

"Anyone with a blog" is not how any of them read this lane. Full detail: references/accreditation-policy.md.

谁获得凭证，以及依据什么已发布的标准。

工作量（政策起草、每个申请人的筛选、拒绝处理）：

媒体加创作者并附有明确标准 > 仅传统媒体 > 开放 > 无

价值（触达开发者受众的报道，来自真正会发布的人）：
```
媒体加创作者并附有明确标准 > 开放 > 仅传统媒体 > 无
```

合规成本（触发的审查、花费的可逆性）：

仅传统媒体 == 媒体加创作者并附有明确标准 > 开放 > 无

效率：

开放 > 媒体加创作者并附有明确标准 > 仅传统媒体 > 无

支配检查——通过注意而干净。 价值和表现在六对组合中恰好一对不一致，这产生了一个严格支配关系：开放_在价值上击败_仅传统媒体，同时花费更少的工作量。效率线必须将开放排在它上面，也确实如此。其他五对的价值和工作量同时上升，因此由比率决定，而不是由支配决定。

大声说出这一个关系，因为它与直觉相悖。在开发者活动中，一个需要大量证明的仅限记者的政策在两个方面同时失败：

在价值上，它从定义上排除了最可靠触达开发者的群体。
在工作量上，它的管理成本比让所有人进来更高，因为每个申请都必须根据证明栈进行筛选。

合规

==

是经过论证的。两个带字母的层级都发布了被拒绝的申请人可以公开引用的标准，而一旦他们发帖，两种拒绝都无法撤销。增加一个创作者轨道会使文书工作翻倍，而不是曝光类别。

这个菜单没有饿死任何东西，这是一个发现，而不是遗漏。 效率排序通常的牺牲品是价值和表现都最高的层级，因为它在每一轮都会输。这里价值领先者（媒体加创作者并附有明确标准）也在工作量上领先，但效率上仍然排名第二，接近默认值，下面的提升条件可以一步到达它。

这个菜单上没有东西既值得拥有又永远无法到达，所以没有需要命名的被饿死选项，也没有需要写的救援条件。

开放——默认：任何说他们在报道活动并说明将在哪里发布的人都能获得免费席位。没有证明栈，没有第二份表格，接近零工作量——在一个只有三个人询问的小社区活动中，这已经是实际发生的。提升条件：当申请数量第一次超过问题8中可用的免费席位时，或在第一次拒绝（问题9）时提升一个层级——一个没有已发布标准的拒绝正是这个菜单存在要避免的争执。
媒体加创作者并附有明确标准——用通俗语言分两条轨道，分开审查：一个面向编辑记者和有任务的自由职业者的媒体轨道，以及一个面向博主、播客和视频创作者的创作者轨道。SXSW 正是这样做的，有两个不同的申请表——“如果你的主要工作是编辑新闻……请提交媒体申请。请提交内容创作者申请”。自己设定创作者标准并发布它，在借用其他人的数字之前阅读下面的警告。
仅传统媒体——带有商业排除和证明栈的编辑记者轨道。RSA Conference 发布的标准是“具有销售、社交媒体、营销或客户管理角色的人将不被考虑获得媒体[认证]”，MWC/GSMA 要求在最近三个月内发表过4-5篇相关的署名文章，并且自由职业者还需要一封有效的任务信——“仅凭记者证将不被接受为媒体凭证”。它是两个中间层级中管理成本最高的，买到的开发者触达最少，这就是为什么支配关系落在它身上。
无——没有认证，没有免费媒体席位，记者使用任何现有票种参加。在售票活动中效率排名最后，这意味着记者要么付费，要么不来。当问题10说活动免费且不限人数时，直接提升到第一位：记者直接走进来，就像在 FOSDEM 一样，认证过程只是一扇开着的门前的表格。
当问题8说完全没有免费席位可提供时，删除：开放。 把它从这个菜单和上面的轴线上删除。免费承诺无法兑现的开放认证会产生一个被接受的申请人在门口被拒之门外，这比基于政策的拒绝更糟糕，而且发生在当天而不是提前。

⚠️ 关于借用创作者门槛。 MWC Barcelona (GSMA) 发布了一个量化的创作者标准——10万或更多订阅者或关注者，以及平均2500次观看的视频。那是一个活动在MWC规模上为其自己的创作者轨道设定的标准。永远不要把它作为标准呈现，也永远不要把它转移到社区活动的政策中。设定一个与你自己的受众成比例的标准，并说明这是你的标准。

永远不要把创作者标准设定得低于媒体轨道。 MWC/GSMA、IBIE Baking Expo、IFEBP 和 ALA 都要求创作者轨道执行更严格的标准：每一个有独立创作者轨道的已发布政策都要求与编辑媒体同等或更高的验证水平。创作者轨道要求关注者或观看数门槛、最低流量计数或一年的主题发布历史，而媒体轨道只要求署名或任务信。

“任何有博客的人”都不是他们任何人对这个轨道的解读。完整细节：references/accreditation-policy.md。

Menu C - on-site handling depth

菜单C——现场处理深度

What exists for press on the day.

effort (day-of ownership, floor space, staffing, scheduling):

staffed press room with brokered interviews > working corner > named contact plus a written recording rule > no on-site provision

value (a reporter can actually file, and no attendee is recorded who opted out):

staffed press room with brokered interviews > named contact plus a written recording rule > working corner > no on-site provision

compliance cost (review triggered, reversibility spent):

staffed press room with brokered interviews > working corner > named contact plus a written recording rule

efficiency:

named contact plus a written recording rule > working corner > staffed press room with brokered interviews > no on-site provision

Dominance check - clean by care. One strict-dominance relation exists across the six pairs: the named contact plus a written recording rule beats the working corner on value while costing less effort, because a table with power does not stop a camera and a written rule does. The efficiency line honours it. The other five pairs have value and effort rising together and are unconstrained.

The compliance axis is printed because recording consent is the one genuinely irreversible exposure in this skill. No on-site provision is deliberately left off the ordering rather than scored zero: it triggers no review of its own, and that is exactly the problem. Press are on the floor anyway, recording, against a rule nobody wrote and nobody agreed to, and a published photograph cannot be unpublished afterwards.

An unmanaged exposure is not a low one.

Named contact plus a written recording rule - the default: one person reachable on the day, plus a short published rule stating what press may film, where, and how the attendee opt-out is respected. Real events write this tightly. SXSW limits session video to the first 4 minutes of any speaker session, and bans tripods, lights and cabling in venue hallways. DEF CON forbids external production crews from filming inside the DEF CON area, and requires reporters to disclose press status when interviewing: "Violating this policy will forfeit your press [credentials]". Promotion condition: move up one rung when Q4 says multiple days - a reporter filing across two days needs somewhere to sit and power - or when accredited numbers exceed what one person can walk around with.
Working corner - a quiet-ish table, power and wifi, plus the contact. Cheap and useful at community scale. It carries no rule on its own, which is why it loses the dominance round.
Staffed press room with brokered interviews - the starved rung: top of value, top of effort, and efficiency never picks it. The constraints are real even at commercial scale. DEF CON's press room runs 6am to 6pm PST Friday–Sunday but explicitly "do[es] not have space for private interview rooms like you'll see at Black Hat", while CES reserves interview rooms bookable for up to 90 minutes. Promotion condition: the same graduation trigger as Menu A - past roughly 500–1,000 attendees, or vendor sponsors briefing media on their own news at your event.
No on-site provision - press are attendees, nothing is staffed, nothing is written. Last on efficiency, and the only rung that leaves the consent question entirely unanswered.
Deleted when Q4 says online-only: the working corner and the staffed press room. Delete both from this menu and from the axis lines above. What survives is the named contact and the recording rule, rewritten for the stream - who may clip it, how long a clip may be, and how a speaker or attendee opts out.

活动当天为媒体提供了什么。

工作量（当天所有权、场地空间、人员配备、日程安排）：

配备人员的新闻室并安排采访 > 工作角 > 指定联系人并附有书面拍摄规则 > 无现场安排

价值（记者可以实际发稿，并且没有记录到选择退出的与会者）：

配备人员的新闻室并安排采访 > 指定联系人并附有书面拍摄规则 > 工作角 > 无现场安排

合规成本（触发的审查、花费的可逆性）：

配备人员的新闻室并安排采访 > 工作角 > 指定联系人并附有书面拍摄规则

效率：

指定联系人并附有书面拍摄规则 > 工作角 > 配备人员的新闻室并安排采访 > 无现场安排

支配检查——通过注意而干净。 六对组合中存在一个严格支配关系：指定联系人并附有书面拍摄规则_在价值上击败_工作角，同时花费更少的工作量，因为一张有电的桌子不会阻止摄像机，而书面规则会。效率线遵守了这一点。其他五对的价值和工作量同时上升，不受约束。

合规轴被列出，因为录音同意是本技能中唯一真正不可逆转的曝光。_无现场安排_被刻意排除在排序之外，而不是得零分：它不会触发自己的审查，这正是问题所在。媒体反正就在现场拍摄，违反着一条没人写过、没人同意的规则，而一张已发布的照片事后无法取消发布。

未管理的曝光不是低压曝光。

指定联系人并附有书面拍摄规则——默认：一个当天可以联系到的人，加上一条简短的已发布规则，说明媒体可以拍摄什么、在哪里拍摄，以及如何尊重与会者的退出选择。真实的活动会严格写出这些。SXSW 将会议视频限制在任何演讲者会议的前4分钟，并禁止在场地走廊使用三脚架、灯光和布线。DEF CON 禁止外部制作团队在 DEF CON 区域内拍摄，并要求记者在采访时披露记者身份：“违反此政策将没收你的媒体[凭证]”。提升条件：当问题4说活动持续多天时——记者跨两天发稿需要某个地方坐着和用电——或者当认证人数超过一个人可以随身照看的范围时，提升一个层级。
工作角——一张相对安静的小桌子、电源和wifi，加上联系人。在社区规模上便宜且有用。它自身不携带规则，这就是它在支配轮中失败的原因。
配备人员的新闻室并安排采访——被饿死的层级：价值最高、工作量最高，效率永远不会选择它。即使在商业规模上，限制也是真实的。DEF CON 的新闻室在周五至周日的太平洋时间早上6点到下午6点运行，但明确“[没有]像你在 Black Hat 看到的那种私人采访室的空间”，而 CES 则预留了可预订长达90分钟的采访室。提升条件：与菜单A相同的毕业触发因素——超过大约500-1000名与会者，或者供应商赞助商在你的活动中向媒体介绍他们自己的新闻。
无现场安排——媒体就是与会者，没有人员配备，没有书面规则。在效率上排名最后，也是唯一一个完全未回答同意问题的层级。
当问题4说纯线上时，删除：工作角和配备人员的新闻室。 把两者从这个菜单和上面的轴线上删除。剩下的是指定联系人和拍摄规则，为流媒体重写——谁可以剪辑它，剪辑可以多长，以及演讲者或与会者如何选择退出。

Menu D - embargo posture

菜单D——禁运姿态

How unpublished material reaches a journalist before it is public.

effort (list upkeep, scheduling, platform setup, chasing lift times):

credential-gated distribution > pre-brief under embargo > honour-system embargo on request > no embargoes

value (coverage landing at the moment the calendar needs it):

pre-brief under embargo > credential-gated distribution > honour-system embargo on request > no embargoes

compliance cost (review triggered, reversibility spent):

credential-gated distribution > pre-brief under embargo == honour-system embargo on request

; no embargoes carries none.

efficiency:

honour-system embargo on request > pre-brief under embargo > credential-gated distribution > no embargoes

Dominance check - clean by care. One strict-dominance relation across the six pairs: the pre-brief beats credential-gated distribution on value at lower effort, because a reporter who has talked to a human writes a fuller piece than one who downloaded a file, while the gated system mostly reduces leak risk rather than producing coverage. The efficiency line honours it. The remaining five pairs are unconstrained.

The compliance

==

is argued: both the pre-brief and the honour-system send put unpublished material in a reporter's hands under nothing but a stated lift time, and a break cannot be undone in either case. The pre-brief adds a conversation, not a different class of exposure. Neither rung tells you how often an embargo actually holds - a gate controls who sees the material at all, which is a different question from whether the people who see it wait.

Honour-system embargo on request - the default: material goes to a named short list with a stated lift date and time including timezone, and nothing enforces it but the relationship. Promotion condition: move up one rung when Q6's beat is the lineup or schedule reveal - the single highest-leverage earned-media moment in the annual cycle - and Q1 named an outlet that has covered a past edition, so there is a warm path to brief.
Pre-brief under embargo - offer a small number of outlets or creators an early conversation ahead of the lift, with the material. It costs scheduling and a rehearsed spokesperson, and buys the fullest coverage available at this scale.
Credential-gated distribution - a login-gated area holding embargoed releases that open as the lift times pass, run on a commercial wire-service distribution platform. Large conferences' media centres do exactly this: credentialed reporters log in to view embargoed releases, and the content is released as the embargoes lift. The starved rung on effort, and the only one with a vendor and a data review attached. Promotion condition: Q3 says sponsors are making product news at your event under their own embargoes - at that point the lift schedule is not yours to leak, and the gate is protecting somebody else's announcement rather than yours.
No embargoes - nothing is held back; each item publishes on the public page when it is ready. Last on efficiency for the ratio-zero reason. Promoted to first outright when Q6 finds nothing on the calendar that is genuinely news held back - a schedule page going live on a planned date is a publication date, not an embargo, and dressing it as one teaches a journalist that your embargoes do not mean anything.
Deleted when Q3 says community-run with no sponsor product news: credential-gated distribution. Delete it from this menu and from the axis lines above. A gated release platform standing between three friendly reporters and a speaker list is infrastructure guarding nothing, and parked at the bottom it returns next cycle as a budget line.

未发布的材料如何在公开之前到达记者手中。

工作量（列表维护、日程安排、平台设置、跟踪发布时间）：

凭证门控分发 > 禁运下的预先简报 > 按需的诚信禁运 > 无禁运

价值（报道在日历需要的时刻落地）：

禁运下的预先简报 > 凭证门控分发 > 按需的诚信禁运 > 无禁运

合规成本（触发的审查、花费的可逆性）：
```
凭证门控分发 > 禁运下的预先简报 == 按需的诚信禁运
```
；无禁运不携带任何合规成本。

效率：

按需的诚信禁运 > 禁运下的预先简报 > 凭证门控分发 > 无禁运

支配检查——通过注意而干净。 六对组合中存在一个严格支配关系：预先简报_在价值上击败_凭证门控分发，且工作量更低，因为与人类交谈过的记者写的文章比下载文件的记者更全面，而门控系统主要降低泄漏风险，而不是产生报道。效率线遵守了这一点。其余五对不受约束。

合规

==

是经过论证的：预先简报和诚信发送都把未发布的材料放在记者手中，仅凭一个规定的时间，而在任何一种情况下，泄露都无法撤销。预先简报增加了一次对话，而不是一种不同的曝光类别。两个层级都不会告诉你禁运实际上有多经常被遵守——门控控制谁能看到材料，这与看到材料的人是否等待是一个不同的问题。

按需的诚信禁运——默认：材料发送给一个指定的短名单，并附上规定的发布日期和时间（包括时区），除了关系之外没有任何强制执行。提升条件：当问题6的节点是阵容或日程公布——年度周期中杠杆率最高的 earned-media 时刻——_并且_问题1指出了一家覆盖过往届的媒体，因此有一条温暖的预先简报路径时，提升一个层级。
禁运下的预先简报——在发布时间之前，向少数媒体或创作者提供一次早期对话，附上材料。这需要安排时间和一个排练过的发言人，但能买到这个规模下最全面的报道。
凭证门控分发——一个登录门控区域，存放随着发布时间过去而开放的禁运新闻稿，在商业通讯社分发平台上运行。大型会议的媒体中心正是这样做的：获得凭证的记者登录查看禁运新闻稿，内容随着禁运解除而发布。工作量上被饿死的层级，也是唯一一个带有供应商和数据审查的层级。提升条件：问题3表明赞助商正在你的活动上以自己的禁运发布产品新闻——此时发布时间表不是你能泄露的，门控保护的是别人的公告而不是你的。
无禁运——什么都不扣留；每项内容在准备好时就在公共页面上发布。由于零比率的原因在效率上排名最后。当问题6发现日历上没有任何真正被扣留的新闻时，直接提升到第一位——一个计划日期上线的日程页面是一个发布日期，而不是禁运，把它伪装成禁运会教会记者你的禁运毫无意义。
当问题3说社区运营且没有赞助商产品新闻时，删除：凭证门控分发。 把它从这个菜单和上面的轴线上删除。一个门控发布平台站在三个友好的记者和一个演讲者列表之间，是守卫着虚无的基础设施，停在底部会在下一个周期以预算线的形式回来。

Failure modes

失败模式

Buying coverage. Offering a sponsorship discount, a speaking slot or an exclusive in exchange for an article converts earned coverage into paid editorial, and both sides lose what made it worth having. If something is promised in return, it is
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-media-partnerships
```
, priced honestly.
Refusing without a published criterion. The refusal, not the policy, is what becomes public. Publish the bar before the first application, and refuse against it in writing with the criterion quoted back.
Generalising one event's creator threshold. See the warning under Menu B. The 100,000-follower / 2,500-view bar is MWC's, for MWC.
Treating a schedule page as news. Pitching a beat nobody would cover burns the one thing this skill accumulates, which is a journalist's willingness to open the next email.
Letting the recording rule live only in someone's head. Write it, publish it with the accreditation policy, and make sure the on-site contact can point at the attendee opt-out mechanism
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-accessibility-inclusion
```
owns.
Improvising the voice during an incident. DEF CON's Goon guidance is blunt with staff and volunteers: "DO NOT SHARE photos or videos... DO NOT make any comments to reporters, and do not post about the incident [publicly]". Designate before, not during.
Merging the holding statement with the remedy. Acknowledging fast and announcing a structural change are two messages days apart, and collapsing them either delays the acknowledgement or ships a half-considered remedy.
Assuming a quoted policy still holds. Web Summit's accreditation page reads "Last updated: October 2020". Check the date on any page you copy from.

购买报道。 以赞助折扣、演讲席位或独家内容换取一篇文章，会把 earned coverage 变成付费编辑内容，双方都失去了让它有价值的东西。如果承诺了回报，那就是
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-media-partnerships
```
，并且要诚实定价。
在没有已发布标准的情况下拒绝。 被公开的是拒绝，而不是政策。在第一批申请之前发布标准，并书面拒绝，引用该标准。
泛化单个活动的创作者门槛。 参见菜单B下的警告。10万关注者/2500次观看的标准是MWC的，用于MWC。
把日程页面当作新闻。 推介一个没人会报道的节点，会消耗掉本技能积累的唯一东西：记者打开下一封邮件的意愿。
让拍摄规则只存在于某人的脑海中。 把它写下来，与认证政策一起发布，并确保现场联系人可以指出与会者退出机制，该机制由
```
samber/dev-event-organizer-skills@event-accessibility-inclusion
```
拥有。
在事件期间即兴发言。 DEF CON 的 Goon 指南对员工和志愿者直言不讳：“不要分享照片或视频……不要对记者发表任何评论，也不要[公开]发布关于该事件的内容”。提前指定，而不是在期间。
将声明与补救措施合并。 快速承认和宣布结构性变革是两个相隔数天的信息，将它们合并要么延迟承认，要么发布一个考虑不周的补救措施。
假设引用的政策仍然有效。 Web Summit 的认证页面写着“最后更新：2020年10月”。检查你复制的任何页面的日期。

Measurement

衡量

No published figure quantifies what coverage volume does to registrations, and this skill states none rather than substituting a proxy that would read as one. Every signal below is self-set. Fix each target before the edition, never after the data arrives.

Published-vs-accredited (self-set). Of everyone credentialed, how many published anything at all. This is the only honest read on whether an accreditation bar is working, and it is the input to next edition's comp allocation.
Beat coverage (self-set). Per calendar beat, who was pitched and who published. The lineup/schedule beat is the one to judge the year on.
Embargo integrity (binary). Zero breaks before the stated lift time. Checkable, and the only measurement here with a correct answer rather than a target.
Consent breaches (binary). Zero published images or recordings of anyone who used the opt-out mechanism. Also checkable, also with no acceptable non-zero value.
Voice discipline (binary). During any incident, zero on-record statements from anyone but the designated spokesperson and their backup.

没有任何已发布的数字量化报道量对注册的影响，本技能没有陈述任何数字，而不是用一个会被解读为真实数字的代理来代替。 下面的每个信号都是自行设定的。在活动之前设定每个目标，绝不要在数据到达之后。

发布与认证比率（自行设定）。 在所有获得凭证的人中，有多少人真正发布了任何内容。这是判断认证门槛是否有效的唯一诚实读数，也是下一届免费席位分配的输入。
节点报道（自行设定）。 每个日历节点，谁被推介了，谁发布了。阵容/日程节点是评判一年的标准。
禁运完整性（二元）。 在规定发布时间之前零泄露。可检查，也是这里唯一一个有正确答案而不是目标的衡量指标。
同意违规（二元）。 任何使用退出机制的人的已发布图像或录音为零。也可检查，也不接受任何非零值。
发言纪律（二元）。 在任何事件期间，除了指定的发言人和其替补之外，零个公开声明。

Invocation examples

调用示例

"We're a 300-person community Go conference. Do we even need a press page, or is that a waste of time?"
"A YouTuber with 40k subscribers asked for a free pass to cover our hackathon. What's our policy, and how do we say no to the next one without it blowing up?"
"Our keynote is a name people will care about. How do we handle the announcement - embargo, pre-brief, or just post it?"
"Two reporters are coming to our conference next month. What do we owe them on the day, and what are we allowed to tell them they can film?"

Expected output: a press brief, presented section by section for approval, with every figure labelled published or self-set.

The posture, with the interview answers that chose it - including the finding when the answer is no press function at all.
The media-page contents.
The accreditation policy, with its published criteria and refusal path.
The beat calendar with dates.
The embargo posture.
The on-site provision and the written recording rule.
The named spokesperson and backup.

“我们是一个300人的社区 Go 会议。我们真的需要新闻页面吗，还是浪费时间？”
“一个拥有4万订阅者的 YouTuber 要求免费通行证来报道我们的黑客马拉松。我们的政策是什么，如何拒绝下一个而不会闹大？”
“我们的主题演讲是一个人们会关心的人物。我们如何处理公告——禁运、预先简报，还是直接发布？”
“下个月有两个记者要来我们的会议。我们当天应该为他们提供什么，我们可以告诉他们可以拍摄什么？”

预期输出：一份媒体简报，逐节呈现供批准，每个数字都标注为已发布或自行设定。

姿态，以及选择它的采访答案——包括当答案是完全不设媒体职能时的发现。
媒体页面内容。
认证政策，及其已发布的标准和拒绝路径。
带日期的节点日历。
禁运姿态。
现场安排和书面拍摄规则。
指定的发言人和替补。

References

参考

references/accreditation-policy.md - eligibility wording with the published exclusions, the escalating proof stack, comp-vs-paid policy with DEF CON's exception, published caps, and how to write and deliver a refusal.
references/press-kit-and-calendar.md - the eight-element media-page checklist with real examples, boilerplate and brand-asset rules, past-edition stats that carry credibility, and the six announcement beats with lead times and who covers each.
references/onsite-and-crisis.md - press-room specifics, the two interview models, photo/video and attendee-consent rules, embargo mechanics, spokesperson preparation, and the four crisis cases with the five principles drawn from them.