While I've long been a dozenalist, I'm only now getting involved in the formal, organized dozenalism of the DSA and the DSGB. (Well, DSA, really.) So there's a lot that's new to me. However, as I mentioned in another thread, I'm sending in my check to the DSA tomorrow, and I'm excited about getting involved in the organizations in whatever ways I can be most helpful.

My question is, to what degree do the two societies work together? Obviously, the DSA and the DSGB have two very different cultural and political milieus to deal with (yes, I anglicized the plural of "milieu"). However, much of what the two societies do they will have in common. I'm given to understand, in another thread, that there's now a common effort to standardize our symbols for :A and :B, which is great. Is this the limit of present cooperation?

For example, on the DSA website, I find a single link to the DSGB site, under a "links" section, though the DSGB site has arguably got substantially more material. I don't find any links to TGM, which is frankly astounding to me. The DSGB does link to the DSA, under "Other dozenal sites," and includes at least one article by F. Emerson Andrews, but doesn't go much further than that. The DSGB website has a great deal of material, such as the 20-hour clock that works by quedriHours (Tims), that would be of intense interest on both sides of the pond. Is this just a feature of the websites, or does this really reflect a lack of cooperation and exchange between the two societies?

Hello Don,

I am the president of the DSA and editor of its Duodecimal Bulletin. Thank you for your interest and membership in the organization. Incidentally we are meeting in New York on Long Island Saturday 27 June 2009; if you are in the area, you and anyone else are welcome to join in.
The DSA and DSGB share a lot in common, beyond the discussion of symbols. Several of the older Members have met. Some DSGB Members have contributed articles to the Duodecimal Bulletin.
Though we don't employ Pitman numerals in the DB or other forms of communication, these are seen of course as valid numerals. Remember that the Dwiggins numerals (the X and "swash E") are really a means of communicating dozenal numbers in the DB for the sake of providing a common frame of reference to the readership, and not an imposition of symbology on the world. We believe that one should use the symbols that make sense to that individual. Until such time that a de facto or de jure standard arises, we will continue to use Dwiggins, as set forth in the earliest days of our Society by Messrs. Andrews, Beard, et al. Recently we reverted back to this system after several dozen years of using the "Bell" numerals (* and #), which were used to facilitate printing a Bulletin with readily available symbols. The symbology debate is important, and is far from convergence. Personally, I prefer Pitman over Dwiggins, but use my own symbols.
Cooperation: The DSA and DSGB do recognize and respect one another; the organizations have rather small cores of active Members. Many of these active Members know one another as individuals. So there is cooperation and appreciation of the work of one Society by the other. The Societies are individual societies, who are free to act on their own initiatives. I wouldn't use the websites to gage the strength of their interaction. The DSA website will be overhauled, and the depth of its Bulletin will be brought to the web soon.
Like any society, the vitality and strength of interaction depends on the activity of its Members. Get involved to whatever capacity you are comfortable with. Welcome to the DSA! Replying in your other threads.

Icarus, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm glad to hear that the two societies cooperate where appropriate. I look forward to getting to know you and the other members better in the coming months.