W dniu śro, 20.06.2018 o godzinie 11∶04 +0200, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
napisał:
> > > > > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu śro, 20.06.2018 o godzinie 10∶24 +0200, użytkownik Kristian
> > Fiskerstrand napisał:
> > > Immediately I can think of two good reasons for this information,
> > > (i) as a disambiguifier for matching names, at least across europe
> > > it is common to refer to an individual "A born DD.MM.YYYY",
> > Please tell me, how many times did we have to disambiguate two
> > developers using the same name? Even if we ever have to do that, do
> > you really think we'd use one's birthday all over the place?
> 
> At least once. While we researched the copyright forms, we wondered
> why there were two entries in LDAP with a different nick, but with the
> same name and approximately the same location.
> 
> > > (ii) verify legal age for entering into agreements. One can argue
> > > that without further verification of (ii) it has less value, but at
> > > least that would be a misrepresentation so shifting the question a
> > > bit if it ever becomes an issue with FLA/DCO etc.
> > a. 'Legal age' may differ per country, so birth date alone is not
> > very useful.
> > b. There is no reason to store the full birth date if all we need is
> > a boolean whether someone is of 'legal age'.
> 
> How would you determine when to flip that bit?

See below.

> 
> > c. We don't even have any clue what to do if someone is *not* of
> > 'legal age'.
> 
> And closing our eyes would improve that situation?
> 

How is that different from the status quo where we request the date
and ignore it?  I'm all for figuring out a good way to deal with it. 
However, I'm against collecting information 'just in case' because we
have no clue how to deal with it.

In other words, dealing with people who are not legal age is not solved
by collecting their birth dates.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny