1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> W dniu śro, 20.06.2018 o godzinie 10∶24 +0200, użytkownik Kristian |
4 |
> Fiskerstrand napisał: |
5 |
>> Immediately I can think of two good reasons for this information, |
6 |
>> (i) as a disambiguifier for matching names, at least across europe |
7 |
>> it is common to refer to an individual "A born DD.MM.YYYY", |
8 |
|
9 |
> Please tell me, how many times did we have to disambiguate two |
10 |
> developers using the same name? Even if we ever have to do that, do |
11 |
> you really think we'd use one's birthday all over the place? |
12 |
|
13 |
At least once. While we researched the copyright forms, we wondered |
14 |
why there were two entries in LDAP with a different nick, but with the |
15 |
same name and approximately the same location. |
16 |
|
17 |
>> (ii) verify legal age for entering into agreements. One can argue |
18 |
>> that without further verification of (ii) it has less value, but at |
19 |
>> least that would be a misrepresentation so shifting the question a |
20 |
>> bit if it ever becomes an issue with FLA/DCO etc. |
21 |
|
22 |
> a. 'Legal age' may differ per country, so birth date alone is not |
23 |
> very useful. |
24 |
|
25 |
> b. There is no reason to store the full birth date if all we need is |
26 |
> a boolean whether someone is of 'legal age'. |
27 |
|
28 |
How would you determine when to flip that bit? |
29 |
|
30 |
> c. We don't even have any clue what to do if someone is *not* of |
31 |
> 'legal age'. |
32 |
|
33 |
And closing our eyes would improve that situation? |
34 |
|
35 |
Ulrich |