AOCB

[semir...@my-deja.com]

AOCB

Does anybody still use it?

Does anybody still know about it?

[Peter Young]

On 3 Sep 2016 semir...@my-deja.com wrote:

> AOCB

Not that I know of.

> Does anybody still use it?

> Does anybody still know about it?

Not me.

Now, how about "A and B the C of D"?

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[bert]

Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
for Any Other Competent Business.
--

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Ah! So not the Academy of Canine Behavior:
http://www.aocb.com/

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Richard Tobin]

In article <d28b101c-5a24-483f...@googlegroups.com>,
bert <bert.hu...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>> AOCB

>Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
>of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
>for Any Other Competent Business.

Does this use of "competent" still exist apart from in this
abbreviation? The OED entry is still mostly from 1891.

-- Richard

[Cheryl]

It would baffle me. I'm only familiar with AOB.

--
Cheryl

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Peter Moylan]

We only had "Any other business". Incompetent business was also admitted.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <d28b101c-5a24-483f...@googlegroups.com>,
bert <bert.hu...@btinternet.com> wrote:

I've never heard of that -- is it a BrE thing?

What I'm more familiar with is having the second item on an agenda
(after "introductions") being "agenda bashing".

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 7:39:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Sep-04 04:34, bert wrote:
> > On Saturday, 3 September 2016 16:42:05 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:

> >> AOCB
> >> Does anybody still use it?
> >> Does anybody still know about it?
> > Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
> > of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
> > for Any Other Competent Business.
>
> We only had "Any other business". Incompetent business was also admitted.

Over Here those are respectively New Business and Old Business.

There's no "(in)competent business."

[Cheryl]

We have old business, new business (which is on the agenda) and any
other business, which is whatever anyone's remembered that needs to be
discussed but didn't get on the agenda.

I've never heard of anything to indicate openly whether any of this
business is competent or not. Someone might argue for discussing
something at a later meeting when more information would be available or
when it becomes rather obvious that it's going to be argued about until
midnight it something isn't done.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 01:26:56 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett
Wollman) wrote:

>In article <d28b101c-5a24-483f...@googlegroups.com>,
>bert <bert.hu...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Saturday, 3 September 2016 16:42:05 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> AOCB
>>>
>>> Does anybody still use it?
>>>
>>> Does anybody still know about it?
>>
>>Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
>>of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
>>for Any Other Competent Business.
>
>I've never heard of that -- is it a BrE thing?

Not BrE, IME.

>
>What I'm more familiar with is having the second item on an agenda
>(after "introductions") being "agenda bashing".
>
>-GAWollman

--

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 5:33:07 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> On 2016-09-04 1:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 7:39:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 2016-Sep-04 04:34, bert wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 16:42:05 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:

> >>>> AOCB
> >>>> Does anybody still use it?
> >>>> Does anybody still know about it?
> >>> Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
> >>> of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
> >>> for Any Other Competent Business.
> >> We only had "Any other business". Incompetent business was also admitted.
> > Over Here those are respectively New Business and Old Business.
> > There's no "(in)competent business."
>
> We have old business, new business (which is on the agenda) and any
> other business, which is whatever anyone's remembered that needs to be
> discussed but didn't get on the agenda.

Hm. Anything not on the agenda is either Old or New.

New Business is what the Chair asks for moments before quitting-time,
and if someone raises their hand, everyone else groans.

> I've never heard of anything to indicate openly whether any of this
> business is competent or not. Someone might argue for discussing
> something at a later meeting when more information would be available or
> when it becomes rather obvious that it's going to be argued about until
> midnight it something isn't done.

I think we need a definition of "competent business." It's not in Roberts.

[Cheryl]

On 2016-09-04 10:36 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 5:33:07 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2016-09-04 1:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 7:39:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 2016-Sep-04 04:34, bert wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 16:42:05 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>>>>> AOCB
>>>>>> Does anybody still use it?
>>>>>> Does anybody still know about it?
>>>>> Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
>>>>> of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
>>>>> for Any Other Competent Business.
>>>> We only had "Any other business". Incompetent business was also admitted.
>>> Over Here those are respectively New Business and Old Business.
>>> There's no "(in)competent business."
>>
>> We have old business, new business (which is on the agenda) and any
>> other business, which is whatever anyone's remembered that needs to be
>> discussed but didn't get on the agenda.
>
> Hm. Anything not on the agenda is either Old or New.

The agenda, in my experience (which is limited) contains both a list of
old business and a list of new business. The Chair may, at the
beginning, ask for any new business that needs to be added to the
agenda, and ask again near the end for "any other business".

>
> New Business is what the Chair asks for moments before quitting-time,
> and if someone raises their hand, everyone else groans.
>
>> I've never heard of anything to indicate openly whether any of this
>> business is competent or not. Someone might argue for discussing
>> something at a later meeting when more information would be available or
>> when it becomes rather obvious that it's going to be argued about until
>> midnight it something isn't done.
>
> I think we need a definition of "competent business." It's not in Roberts.
>

[Richard Tobin]

In article <250fcddd-8268-4575...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>I think we need a definition of "competent business." It's not in Roberts.

I take it to mean "relevant" - you can't bring up some subject
unrelated to the purpose of the meeting.

The OED includes these meanings for "competent", which seem close:

6 (Law)
b. Of a witness, evidence, etc.: Capable of being brought
forward, admissible.
c. Of a case, etc.: Within the jurisdiction of a court.

-- Richard

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Back in the 1960s when we first had a television, I used to be puzzled
by claims on Perry Mason that something another lawyer said was
"incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial", but I assumed that people
familar with the way American court proceedings worked knew what
"incompetent" meant, even I didn't.



--
athel

[Jerry Friedman]

On 9/3/16 7:26 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <d28b101c-5a24-483f...@googlegroups.com>,
> bert <bert.hu...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 16:42:05 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> AOCB
>>>
>>> Does anybody still use it?
>>>
>>> Does anybody still know about it?
>>
>> Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
>> of agenda

*admiring whistle*

>> for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
>> for Any Other Competent Business.
>
> I've never heard of that -- is it a BrE thing?
>
> What I'm more familiar with is having the second item on an agenda
> (after "introductions") being "agenda bashing".

And I've never heard of that.

--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers

[semir...@my-deja.com]

Many thanks. Have you known this for some time or is it
relatively new to you?

[semir...@my-deja.com]

On Sunday, 4 September 2016 02:26:58 UTC+1, Garrett Wollman wrote:

>bert wrote:
>>semir...@my-deja.com wrote:

>>>AOCB
>>>Does anybody still use it?
>>>Does anybody still know about it?

>>Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
>>of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
>>for Any Other Competent Business.

>I've never heard of that -- is it a BrE thing?

Yes, or at least it certainly was.

>What I'm more familiar with is having the second item on an agenda
>(after "introductions") being "agenda bashing".
> -GAWollman

If the first item were apologies for absence,
the second the minutes and
the third "Matters arising"
then any of these last which could not be dealt with
in a sentence or two might be relegated to
AOCB along with anything which had been inadvertently
omitted and matters which had arisen after the agenda
had been drawn up.

[bert]

For quite some time. I would say that I remember it
from the 1950s onwards, from the agenda for meetings
of many different groups that I have been part of.

It is just possible that there is something peculiarly
Scottish about it, from the apparent lack of knowledge
of it shown by other contributors to this thread.
--

[Robert Bannister]

On 4/09/2016 7:33 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2016-09-03 4:04 PM, bert wrote:
>> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 16:42:05 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com
>> wrote:
>>> AOCB
>>>
>>> Does anybody still use it?
>>>
>>> Does anybody still know about it?
>>
>> Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
>> of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
>> for Any Other Competent Business.
>>
> It would baffle me. I'm only familiar with AOB.
>

Likewise. It was frequently an opportunity for the incompetents to speak up.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 10:20:56 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> On 2016-09-04 10:36 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 5:33:07 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> >> On 2016-09-04 1:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 7:39:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>> On 2016-Sep-04 04:34, bert wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 16:42:05 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:

> >>>>>> AOCB
> >>>>>> Does anybody still use it?
> >>>>>> Does anybody still know about it?
> >>>>> Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
> >>>>> of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
> >>>>> for Any Other Competent Business.
> >>>> We only had "Any other business". Incompetent business was also admitted.
> >>> Over Here those are respectively New Business and Old Business.
> >>> There's no "(in)competent business."
> >> We have old business, new business (which is on the agenda) and any
> >> other business, which is whatever anyone's remembered that needs to be
> >> discussed but didn't get on the agenda.
> > Hm. Anything not on the agenda is either Old or New.
>
> The agenda, in my experience (which is limited) contains both a list of
> old business and a list of new business. The Chair may, at the
> beginning, ask for any new business that needs to be added to the
> agenda, and ask again near the end for "any other business".

If it were known in advance, so as to be puttable on the agenda, it
wouldn't be New Business! It would be among the committee reports, for
instance.

> > New Business is what the Chair asks for moments before quitting-time,
> > and if someone raises their hand, everyone else groans.
> >

[Peter Young]

I'm on several committees and secretary to two of them., and this
abbreviation is totally unknown to me. It's always AOB, if
abbreviated; it usually isn't abbreviated.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.

"Committee secretaries do it in minutes."

[Cheryl]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 20:33:59 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> If it were known in advance, so as to be puttable on the agenda, it
> wouldn't be New Business! It would be among the committee reports,
for
> instance.

That's not the way I've seen 'new business' used

--
Cheryl

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 05 Sep 2016 07:36:13 +0100, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 4 Sep 2016 bert <bert.hu...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 4 September 2016 22:04:59 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 19:35:01 UTC+1, bert wrote:
>>>>On Saturday, 3 September 2016 16:42:05 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>AOCB
>>>>> Does anybody still use it?
>>>>> Does anybody still know about it?
>>>
>>>>Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
>>>>of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
>>>>for Any Other Competent Business.
>>>
>>> Many thanks. Have you known this for some time or is it
>>> relatively new to you?
>
>> For quite some time. I would say that I remember it
>> from the 1950s onwards, from the agenda for meetings
>> of many different groups that I have been part of.
>
>> It is just possible that there is something peculiarly
>> Scottish about it, from the apparent lack of knowledge
>> of it shown by other contributors to this thread.
>
>I'm on several committees and secretary to two of them., and this
>abbreviation is totally unknown to me. It's always AOB, if
>abbreviated; it usually isn't abbreviated.

I agree with that based on years of committee experience including as
secretary.

It is for the chairperson, assisted by the secretary if necessary, to
decide whether an item introduced in AOB is within the remit of the
committee and whether it can be adequately handled as an AOB item.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Occasionally something urgent will come up and the chairman will be
informed just before or at the start of the meeting. She/he will inform
the committee members and with their agreement add the item to the
agenda rather than leaving it to AOB.

[semir...@my-deja.com]

Yes, that would make sense - totally standard yet
totally unknown outwith the area of standard use.

I shall have to put it on a list with ashet
and rone. Thanks again.

[Lewis]

In message <a396b4ba5...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>

Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2016 bert <bert.hu...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>> On Sunday, 4 September 2016 22:04:59 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 19:35:01 UTC+1, bert wrote:
>>>>On Saturday, 3 September 2016 16:42:05 UTC+1, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>AOCB
>>>>> Does anybody still use it?
>>>>> Does anybody still know about it?
>>>
>>>>Yes, and yes. Typically towards the end of the list
>>>>of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
>>>>for Any Other Competent Business.
>>>
>>> Many thanks. Have you known this for some time or is it
>>> relatively new to you?

>> For quite some time. I would say that I remember it
>> from the 1950s onwards, from the agenda for meetings
>> of many different groups that I have been part of.

>> It is just possible that there is something peculiarly
>> Scottish about it, from the apparent lack of knowledge
>> of it shown by other contributors to this thread.

> I'm on several committees and secretary to two of them., and this
> abbreviation is totally unknown to me. It's always AOB, if
> abbreviated; it usually isn't abbreviated.

I've seen AOB, rarely. Never even heard of AOCB.


--
RTFM replies are great, but please specify exactly which FM to R

[Mark Brader]

Bert Hutchings:

>> Typically towards the end of the list
>> of agenda for a meeting - AOCB for brevity, standing
>> for Any Other Competent Business.

Cheryl Perkins:

> It would baffle me. I'm only familiar with AOB.

Either one would have baffled me, until this thread.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It's never too late to learn what "opsimath" means.
m...@vex.net | --James Hogg