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)
This feature is still actively being worked upon. I’ll let you know as we get closer to release.
Lance Moonshower commented
I agree with the other comments - private/public Teams are not enough.
Private and public teams are not sufficient. We want out teams to be public but limited certain channels. This is a necessity in our education environment and will be required when external federation is released.
Kokou Golokuma commented
Any update on this? we need private channels even if the Team is Public or Private.
Private and Public Teams is nice to have, but insufficient; I view it as a first-class priority to have Private Channels within Public Teams.
Henry Morland commented
This would be hugely useful to me - to include external stakeholders on a project by project basis without having to add them to the team
Any update on this? The 'Try this instead' is obviously not a viable solution (hence the 2142 votes / 170+ comments).
Ludmila B commented
I want 2 channels for every team, one is private (only de department people talk there) and one is public: when somebody in the company has a question and joins that channel, then exists the channel the same day or later.
And this is just the start.
Then other custom channels, depending on the compnay's needs. It means I will have at least 30 teams in the scenario that you proposed. Very very unpractical and unuseful
to explain why private AND hidden channels (rooms):
with private rooms, you are able to knock on the door and ask if you can join, because you see potential value in taking part with this channel
hidden channels are not seen until you are invited
as mentioned in another post:
Problem: Everyone who is part of the group/team is potentially part of of every channel of that team. Because channels are open and the only thing you can do is favourite them.
Office 365 = house
Team/Group = room
channel = group of people inside of that room
-> once you are inside of the room, you can go to every group and talk with them, even listen what they talk about, without being invited to participate
How it should be:
Office 365 = City
Team/Group = House
channel = room
post = group inside of that room (with the reply button you can participate with every conversation that is happening inside of that room)
-> once someone invited me into the house, I can walk around, see open doors/rooms, closed doors/rooms and there are even hidden rooms in the basement, I don't even know whether they exist
please have open channels, private channels and hidden channels and allow us to only invite people to specific channels, without them seeing the whole house (group/team)
David Graham commented
Private channels are different than private teams. I want to have access to certain channels limited to a subset of my team.
Here's a great example:
Project Management. Why would the Portfolio Manager create a Team for each project, when a private channel would work just as well? Along with that, content could remain even though the channel is no longer used (unsubscribed/unfavorited)?
I'm with Jake, as well: I've got an Operations Team, with about ten channels, a Strategy Team, with just shy of ten channels, and then there's all the groups that have been created for small to mid-sized projects that don't exactly need PWA-level technology burdening it. Why? Because that's the tool-set available to us right now.
Gauri Bhalerao commented
Agree with the comments on needing to have private channels. We are trying to use teams for collaboration but hard to use it if I can't create a private channel and know who all has access to it.
Bas de Wit commented
Can we please get an update about this quickly? We really need this to implement MS Teams at all our customers.
Jake Hedstrom commented
Hmmmmmm... is that Slack I hear laughing?
If MSTeams is to win hearts of all those Slack fanboys out there, standard features like this are a must have. Microsoft will need to implement this feature (along with others) ASAP. I currently have 4 private Teams just for my IT department - it's cumbersome, irritating to work with, complicates workflow, and just plain doesn't make sense. Private channels is a must! I have a number of 'key stakeholders' who won't even consider a move to MSTeams until this feature is released.
Thanks for listening.
Kyle Stay commented
IT has locked down our ability to great new teams, we are able to create new channels though. Something to consider...
That is a really terrible workaround.
I am in complete agreement with all the comments below which have given excellent examples of just why making more and more Teams is insufficient.
François BD commented
Hello. I think MS Teams is a great tool. But my company will not use it if there is no possibiliy of creating private channels. Il would mean too many teams and too much complexity. I am afraid because of this we will continue using slack.
Jay G commented
Suphatra, I concur with the recent consensus that the proposed work around really isn't desirable. Creating another team with all of the overhead and switching makes little sense if all that's needed is few private channels in a large team environment with a number of channels. Anything with over 2000 votes should suggest that MS needs to go back to the drawing board.