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)
Hi Everyone – thank you for your patience. As was commented by someone below, Suphatra is no longer at Microsoft, but rest assured we are working on this feature.
Andreas Scharf commented
any update? Timeline?
Users of Teams need to be able to toggle channels as public or private, please add this feature as soon as possible!
Need to be able to lock certain channel down to only certain users invited to MS Teams workspace. Like customer or partner, an external user, accessing only certain content. Would be great to have it!
I run project delivery for an MSP and this is on of the main pieces of feedback I hear from end users in our customer base, internally, my organisation has over 50 MS teams setup for different teams, subteams and activities, if we had the ability to have private channels I could realistically see the number of MS Teams internally drop to single digits!!!!!
Likewise private channels would make this solution into a must have for project delivery teams, as we can now add external users (like slack) our customers are wanting to have a team setup to collaborate, however there are some conversations that must be internal to the Project Team, without private channels we are having to reject this platform as a project control surface at the minute.
And I really dont want to have to roll out Slack when we already are an O365 and Azure Gold partner! as we should be running what we sell to our clients!
Nearing the end of July 2018, looking for a feature previously projected for early 2018. This is a show stopper for our organization's adoption. We are 84,000+ employees and if we cannot control access at the channel level, the MS Teams value proposition is severely impacted.
Any updates as to a firm ETA for this feature?
I think there is some misunderstanding and I was hoping you could help us out. Most of the world is using the Gregorian calendar systems. Under this system we are already past the midway point in the 2018 year. I think the fundamental issue here is that the team working on Private Channels is not using the Gregorian system. Could you please let us know what calendar system the team is using so we can calibrate our expectations and know what early 2018 means in the Gregorian system we are using? Thanks so much for your help!!
Stéphane CHAN-KAM commented
I was first happy to see a Slack like solution in office 365, but then when I saw that this feature is not implemented and that is has been requested more than a year and a half ago, it makes me just wanna leave right away and keep using Slack... This is very sad, I feel these récents years Microsoft are having good ideas, but it's always halfway done...
Simon Hooper commented
With the company now using teams, without private channels this will be choas! Example , I have an IT team, under that a development section. Within development I have seperate plans, I would like to give a Department manager (non-IT) access to that plan. I dont want to give him access to the whole team and I definately dont want to start creating individual teams per sub project (I would have over a 100!)
This is a major problem! My organization in order to accept teams needs:
1 Private Channels
Ability to Archive Channels (200 channels is weak sauce! We want to use teams like permanent work space! We dont want to start over every month and a half with a confusing new team name because of some artificial limitation)
Stop forcing us to delete data to keep a team alive! Give us an archive ability! We work on new projects everyday. That means new channels everyday. Old channels should get archived while new channels are at the front. We don’t want clutter from old channels that have historical data but are no longer active. Archive them for use later.
Peter McDermott commented
...this is paramount...need this!!!!
Ok this has been going on for a while and is a deal breaker for us. We will stick with Slack
Nathan Alden, Sr. commented
This is what happens when you build a product (Teams) on top of flawed domain models (SharePoint and Groups). Teams can't support this because its underlying domain mode and data model don't support it. Meanwhile, Slack completely controls their software's model and can build exactly what the problem space needs. It could be years (or never) before SharePoint and Groups support the idea of channels with a different membership list than the Group and SharePoint site that underlie the Team.
Happy 10, 000 votes day!
William Block commented
Needed functionality. Creating additional Private Teams is leading to sprawl. Logically private channels within a team makes more sense.
Victoria Hughes commented
This helped us understand what we needed to do differently - the conclusion has some good tips, too. https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/skypehybridguy/2018/01/06/why-do-i-receive-invites-to-channel-meetings-in-microsoft-teams-mystery-solved/
Teams and Channels are like a family "Parent/Child" relationships.
Channels need to be exclusive.
Some family children are boys and some are girls.
- Boys go in the boys room.
- girls go in the girls room.
- You can't mix boys and girls. That would make them scream and fight. "Get out of my room!"
- All Boys/Girls are family members (team) and live in the same house. But there are rules in the house. (Think RBAC - roll based access control... hint. hint. active directory)
This is a very reasonable request and it's something Microsoft does very well.
Losing this functionality after having it in Slack just makes "Teams" look under-developed to my organization. I'm in a very big organization. I really want this program to work. I like it a lot! But confidentiality is a big deal for my developers, managers and team members. If Teams will not support that then we will stick with Slack. We arn't going to roll off something that works to a platform that promises to work but no date/time/estimate and in the mean time we would lose functionality that we depend on. Sorry, can't do it.
David McKowen commented
When I come back here to see if any movement has happened on this sore subject I read, and re-read, these comments and It makes me feel less crazy when I think that this functionality should have been in the original beta, let alone the live release. I have announced this must have feature was "coming soon!!!" to my organization like 3 times now over the last year... egg, meet my face. I give up....
Mark Thompson commented
Lots of requests from my client for this feature. In the meantime we try to avoid creating new micro-Teams, so here's what I suggest if it fits the users' needs:
1. Create the Channel
2. Identify the users of that Channel
3. Create a Chat, name it the same as the Channel, add the same users, get everyone to pin it (be aware of current max participants in a Chat)
4. If necessary, create a location in SharePoint for their files and tweak permissions
5. Add the new files area to the Channel as a SharePoint or Website tab
A bit of extra work and friction but maybe better than loads of new mini Teams
Nerida Wood commented
We are looking to deploy Teams, but desperately would like the option to be able to restrict permissions to a channel if needed. To me, it's a no brainer. Can Microsoft please update us on this subject because it will make a massive impact on whether we deploy or not. Thank you!
Most votes on user voice, yet not on the road map. GG Microsoft.