How can we make Microsoft Teams better?

Support for Private Channels

Looking for the ability to create a channel that only channel members can see. Private channels are available in slack. There is an admin for private channels who is the creator, and they are the ones who add/remove users.

Five types of public/privacy that is being asked for by users:

- Public-Open (visible anywhere including outside the org and anyone can join)
- Public-Invitation (visible anywhere including outside the org, must be invited)
- Company-Open (only visible inside the org and anyone in the org can join; outside the org must be invited)
- Company-Invitation (only visible inside the org, must be invited)
- Secret (invisible to everyone except existing members, must be invited)

15,896 votes
Sign in
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Angela Sze shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hey Microsoft Teams users — I want you to weigh in on new features around channels and group chats. The engineering team and I have put together this survey to find out how you want to see channels improve. You can fill it out here:

    And I’m still waiting on approval to get you a good update about Private Channels. I can say that we ARE working on it, fervently.

    Thanks and ping me any time, for anything at all: or I’m a little behind on email but catching up, so apologies for delays there!



    Sign in
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The lack of the capability to control who has access to various channels of information is a serious blocking condition for using this product. Please provide an update on when the control groups identified above (Public Open/Invite, Company Open/invite, Secret) will be available.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Any updates on when this will be released? From the look of things, this is taking way too long to get implemented.

      • Magnus commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Pleeeeease could we get an update on this? When will it come and how will it work?

      • Jamelle Legaspi commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Totally need this. Slack has had this feature forever, and if Teams ever wants to even come close to be considered as a replacement, this is the one feature that would do it.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Still waiting on that private channel feature! Like with others, this is the ONE thing holding us back from going full MS Teams.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Eagerly awaiting this function as well. When I start a conversation to a specific sub-team I want to be able to "@" the channel without having to spam all 20 people in the larger team.

      • Sean Ellis commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        We're coming up on 3 months since the last update, where Suphatra (whose job is dissemination of information) was being denied permission to disseminate information about progress on the #1 most voted feature request.

        Once again this shows that Microsoft's communication strategy with users is fundamentally broken, and continues to call into question the effectiveness of engaging with them semi-privately through UserVoice.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I too waited for this change, but then I realized that by building Teams on on the back of SharePoint and with membership being managed at the Group level, it seemed like it would be insanely hard to have Private Channels. Even if there was a nice interface that allowed you to lock down that one SharePoint Document Folder for that Channel, how would you do things like assign sensitive Action item in Planner for that locked channel since Planner is managed at the Group level? What I ended up doing to solve this problem was to create another Private Team so it too had a full set of resources (document library, planner, etc.). I realized that there wasn't a practical limit on the number of Groups we can create in O365. For the original larger "Team" this new Team doesn't even exist in their Teams list. In some ways I think that is better than having a Channel that people can see but are blocked from. For this smaller Team that is a sub-set of the larger Team, they of course see this both Teams in their Teams list. This means the more private space sits at one higher level in the Teams list in the App versus existing as a Channel nested in the larger team. I haven't found it to be a problem. The search function looks for files and conversations across all Teams. The activity feed aggregates what you need to see across all your teams for you so there isn't a lot of clicking around. I've been doing this split-team approach for about 6 months for now and have seen that about 95% of the content and activity exists in the larger Team, with the few private things, like HR-sensitive documents and conversations and Planner assignments exist in the smaller Team. And for even smaller private things we use Private Named Chats that we keep pinned. So while a Private Channel in a Team with full access to all the feature like Planner would be even better, this alternative comes with a pretty low friction level in actual day to day use. Where this solution works well is like having a Department Team, but then a separate team for the managers or direct reports. I'm on several of these hybrid Teams in my role in middle management and its very easy to manage as a consumer and contributor. Some of the teams I'm on have no membership overlap with each other, others have some common members. Some of my managers have their own Teams that I don't have visibility into and don't really need it. I get there may be use scenarios for some arrangements that make this untenable, but I wonder how may of those there are. I work in an org with 10,000+ people (but Teams is still pretty early in the adoption curve).

      • Per Hoffner commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        A lot of voices but no ears? Why have a Uservoice site for Teams if Microsoft doesn't listen or at least show that they listen? Now it is just a whining-site...

      • Julian commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Channel permissions, channel permissions, channel permissions, channel permissions, channel permissions, channel permissions, channel permissions, channel permissions.

        Our organization has no desire to roll out Teams en masse until something as basic as channel permissions comes to the table.

        Slack, Discord and all other competing products have this feature. This really should be the highest priority request. Instead you're providing first line employee scheduling and yammer live stream garbage to Teams. STOP HALF BAKING A PRODUCT!

      • Lotte Nielsen commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Could you please just say something on this issue? Anything you say will be better than this silence...!
        What went wrong since your statement "expected in the first quarter of 2018"?
        If you cannot say something soon, we will have to move to a different solution.
        1800+ licences.

      • Derek Bowen commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Thinking MS needs a new admin who is willing to keep communication up on this feature request. Not sure why you would post a survey in Oct, then not have the results or at least some kind of info about next steps. You managed to fix the Windows 10 1809 issue faster.

      • Spencer commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        @Suphatra, like everyone else I need this feature but you asked specifically for comments on specific requests.
        1. When adding members to the Team, include 'entire Team site' or 'specific channels' option. If 'specific channels' is selected, include a list of channels with none selected by default. On clicking to enable each channel, select applicable permissions level.
        2. Alternatively, from the perspective within a channel, include an inheritance option (enabled by default). Once deselected the permissions list appears/expands and includes option to change/remove/add.
        3. Permissions should include read, contribute (limited to e.g. adding files only), read+contribute, modify, full-control.
        4. If a user is listed as an Owner on the Team, their entry is grayed-out on the granular permissions list (listed as full-control)
        5. Include a permissions report for each team (perhaps as a default, built-in Power BI report)
        6. Include option to revoke all individual/custom permissions, revert to inherited permissions at parent level.

        ...and of course, I too would like an idea of the timeline. I can use the SharePoint permissions workaround but its extremely cumbersome and impossible to scale. TYIA

      Feedback and Knowledge Base