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)
We acknowledge the customer demand for Private Channels and have been hard at work on it. Private Channels is currently in preview with a select group of customers. We expect to release the feature to the public later this Fall, and will update here when we are starting to roll out to all customers. We appreciate all the feedback you have provided to us on this forum and thank you for your patience.
Let’s get it in this month.
Would welcome an indication of when this functionality will be available. One question I have is how will any files associated with the private channel be stored? I am hoping that it won't be a folder in the SharePoint site with unique permissions. Our preference would be a separate document library as we are trying to reduce the use of folders (in preference to metadata) and are discouraging the breaking of permissions inheritance below a document library.
Well I've just discovered Teams and can't believe such a basic feature of subteam/channel with members of their own isn't possible. We use Slack and this a standard feature and members can be assigned to channels individually. The entire account team doesn't need to know about ongoing work on maintenance tickets etc but the only way to avoid this is to create 2 completely separate teams...annoying.
A lot of great features announced at Ignite 2018 around Teams. Many were touted as "most requested" which I am sure they were high on the list. However, Channel permissions seems to be the most requested yet never made the presentations any only acknowledge when asked about . I can only surmise the Teams dev team has been tasked with completing much of the 365 app integrations- especially with SfB- before being allowed to tackle this.
I think everyone at Microsoft died...
Sorry guys, no more development
Thank you for your work on this important feature. As a growing startup, this is a major reason keeping us from using Teams after having moved to O365. This topic has been discussed for two (!) years now...and it seems to be still unclear when to expect this major improvement. Any update will be appreciated.
Alexander Ketsko commented
Think, it would be great to have Teams permission types like (read/write) for public teams and channels. It could help engaging more peaple to Teams by publishing there some content and giving them the team code, while having no worries about managing the members.
Any estimate when it will be available?
Jon Woodley commented
This is THE missing feature from Teams and is putting people off. This is desperately needed. Will this feature the full functionality of public channels?
Same as most other answers, the lack of control on channels is really holding back our deployment of Teams and in fact, has seriously undermined the roll out of Teams, on discovery of this major deficit. Considering that 75% of MSIgnite seemed to be based around the use of Teams, the delay is disappointing.
Matija Kapic commented
It would be great if secret channels could be exceptionally located outside of teams, as in my organization often such channels are consisted of members from multiple teams (let's say inter-departmental collaboration)
Sean Matthews commented
We are trying desperately to push our customers down teams but many use slack and constantly use private channels as their main argument against it. It is not enough to say its ‘coming’. We must have a date. It is no exaggeration to state we could be set to lose around 400 seats to google due to this one missing feature. That’s massive to an SME like us. Please give us a timescale!!!
Derek Hsu commented
The absence of private channel feature is the primary reason that stop us from migrating from Slack to Teams.
Paula McShane commented
Teams are great but the ability to have different members in each channel would be hugely beneficial. A good example is where one manager currently belongs to 24 teams when we could have more efficiently set it up to 3 individual teams just by being able to select different members per channel.
@derek Elbert @Subhatra I grow more and more frustrated that no one knows the real status, no real deadline. No one is accountable. What ever is the real info, just say so. If its going to be another year, then we know how to respond to others better. SOME news is better than NO news. No news is really embarrassing.
Derek Elbert commented
I cannot understand how Private channels within Public teams cannot be added. It has been very inefficient to be forced to create separate teams in order to keep them private from others on the team. This absolutely needs to be added. @Suphatra do you know when this will be deployed in terms of a product/feature life cycle.
Hi! I've been watching this item for several months, my users are eager to have private channels. I see that your message says Suphatra says "actively in development" but this is not an item listed as "In development" on the O365 roadmap. When will we see this pop up on the roadmap? Thanks!
Sean Ellis commented
This was first promoted to "working on it" on 9 Feb 2017, exactly 600 days ago.
Ulf Eirik Johnsen commented
The subject and desctiption of this uservoice article seems somewhat out of sync with what is being posted and reported beneath. Could make for some misunderstandings and unclear message.
Could it be updated to specify the need for direct channel access managment instead of this "private / public" alternatives?
If not, perhaps I've mistook this uservoice article for something it is not.
Ulf Eirik Johnsen commented
Hi, putting my two cents down here on argumenting for how much we need this implemented.
We have a support and operations department where Modern Workplace is in the centre of services delivered. Here we of course use our own recommended setup and thus when setting up cooperation with each customer Teams is an obvious choice. Our customers love this plattform for easy communication for both support and operations coordination (with dedicated customer IT staff, not as a alternative to support system per user case), project deliveries, reporting and even contract negotiations. Its really a big success!
But here the current limitation with lack of access management per channel gives us a broadside of anguish. We set up a minimum of one Teams per customer for easy cooperation and reporting back and forth. Since big customers have different people involved in mentioned acitivities and more, they naturally differenciate between who is to have access and cooperate on different subjects. To us that means several paralell Teams per customer.
As a result we get an awful lot of Teams and it gets disorganized and hard to keep track on beside our companys own teams for internal needs, activites and projects. This would be way more efficent and neat if we could group these inside one Teams as channels with different access lists. Then we could for example have one Teams for contract negotiations and create one channel per customer. Much better! Likewise with support coordination and customer needs with grouping different customers as channels beneath one Teams dedicated for this area.
I'm hoping this gets implemented and available soon.
Ulf E. Johnsen