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)
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: https://microsoft.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_esTxHdABLQxKLvn
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.
Remco Kragt commented
To be clear, the solution for private channels is NOT splitting the original team into multiple teams!!! While it is very likely that the 'General' channel is available for all users of the teamr.
Hi Suphatra. From my IT point of view, i think this thread can be globally renamed "How manage permissions with Teams", because the subject is not only permissions on channels. Many internal IT teams want to control how can access what.
Actually, group owners can do everything, but this administration delegation to end-user is a nightmare for us. Maybe you need to change how the gouvernance works.
For the SharePoint site part, we need to have the capacity to organize SP site permissions with the two O365 group claims for example (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint/dev/transform/modernize-connect-to-office365-group-permissions).
Case : i want O365 group owners don't have full control, but only edit permission level to create list/Library and items but not change site permissions, branding, ...
For the Teams part : i don't want the O365 group owner can change External sharing /access options.
Etc .. to sum up, we need to have more options for permissions on data and not give full admin right to company end-users.
Another feedback, it's complicated for Internal IT guys to manage Teams/O365 group without to add themself as owner on the O365 group (we can't access to a specific Teams, can't access SharePoint site as site collection administrator without to use a PowerShell command, etc …)
More technically, maybe you can extend the O365 Group in AAD like this :
- Administrators : user/group list | Full control on SP Site / Teams / O365 Group
- Owner : user/group list | Edit permissions on SP Site / some settings on Teams and O365 Group (optionnaly, manage the members list)
- Member : user/group list : Collaboration on SP site and other data of the group.
- Guest group 1 : user list | To define
- Guest group n : user list| To define
NB : i write "group" because it will be very usefull that IT Team can manage O365 membership with onpremise Active Directory Group. Today, we have to use a PowerShell script to synchronize the membership in order to control how can access data.
I hope you will understand my poor English :) and you will do something very quickly for us on this important subject.
Have a nice day.
I've completed the survey but the only questions that seemed relevant related to merging group chats into channels or teams, but only because we've been creating group chats to do what we should have been able to do with private channels in the first place.
With private channels, we wouldn't need any of the options from the survey at all.
That was a strange survey.
Non of the questions related to private channels.
May I advise to steer away from the analysis paralysis and start releasing some changes?
What most people need is to have the possibility to grant access to channels to individuals.
Extra's like managing groups and granting access to channels based on them could be in a next version.
After that look at the feedback and go from there.
Thanks for considering this.
That change would make a big difference.
Jurgen Brouwer commented
@Suphatra In my opinion the survey is missing the point completely. I do not care about moving, splitting or merging teams or conversations. Those are workarounds for the issue in this thread, but they can be abandoned the minute channels in teams can be made private.
I've just completed the survey you provided. It does not cover any of the reasons why my company needs private channels.
As mentioned in previous posts, all we need is:
1. The ability for the Team owner to hide / un-hide channels per Team member.
2. Provide an individual access to a specific Channel, but not the Team. This could be achieved through point 1 if configured correctly.
I work for a consultancy where we have multiple projects running concurrently for a specific client. We set up a Team per client and a Channel per project. As we use external contractors to perform some of the work we would like the ability for the external contractors to only see the Channels relevant to them.
Hi Suphatra, we need this function ASAP, right now, all our user can create teams, and start conversation in each team, but finally we found out a lot of them is duplicated just because do not have private channel function, of course we can manage that from admin side, but that would limit the innovation from user, and now we need to merge those channel, or give up some teams.
We need this, just like you manage a fourm site, it always change and change for the board, move the thread, until get into stable, but when we have new project, we repeat the processes.
so, just reference to some famous BBS or forum system design, that is what we need and we know how to do.
I don't fully understand the "5 types of public/privacy" that is mentioned in the idea post. It seems like a lot of that is dependent on if the TEAM is set to Private or Public. All we need is the ability to distinguish the channel as:
1) Channel available to all team members (default)
2) Channel name visible to all team members, but requires permission to view and participate in channel
3) Channel is hidden to team members and requires invitation to be visible
Nigel Reeves commented
no building a lot of confidence...
That's really great news Suphatra (that Teams is being worked on fervently). Glad Microsoft is paying it so much attention. Not having this capability in Teams is a significant inhibitor in convincing Slack stakeholders to move to Teams. Keep up the great work!
I think this survey might have been posted in the wrong feature. The survey seems to be answering questions for these features ->
Move conversations to different channels
Move channels into other teams
That survey just seemed out of left field for a majority of the questions for me. I think I get the idea though. its been so long with this feature people have invented their own workarounds. So now they are trying to figure out how easy they need to make it to unworkaround the workarounds and trying to do it an a robust way Or at least it appears that way to me judging by the survey. Seems to be generally anecdotally many see this as 2 steps
1) please implement private channels asap
2) please help us now merge our workarounds to the private channels (I would guess by the survey MS already knows this will come immediately after #1 is implemented so planning ahead perhaps)
Frustration personally I have is please dont make matters worse. Jsut implement some kind of private channels please. I'll take almost anything at this point. Just some movement instead of trying to solve all problems in 1 go, please make incremental improvements. this survey might be helpful to ms, but to me at least seems like busy work to get us some idea something is begin done. Dont need that, I'm happy to just have some sort of private channels, and leave the workaround as they are for now. It will stop the bleeding.
Scot Mcphee commented
The survey does not load for me. Using safari on iOS.
christian hasselbalch commented
90% of what i need is the ability to create a channel in a team and restrict who can access&see that channel via its members. the rest can come later..
for now without the ability to create private channels we end up creating hundred of different teams instead of a few consolidate and healthy sized teams.
if we had private channels we could reduce the fragmentation of teams greatly and finally create some healthy sized organizational teams.
Phillip Boushy commented
@suphatra - I'm concerned that the survey had minimal info on requirements for private vs public channels and how we would want to combine existing teams into privet channels in a single team... it mostly covered merging and splitting teams which has very little to do with this feature request.
It seems like creating sub-groups in a Team would be a relatively easy thing to solve before worrying about merging/splitting channels, Teams, conversations, and threads.
We have a need for private channels for project or organizational sub-groups that need to have their convos and files within the major Team/organization but secured with different permissions. For example, the channel owners can edit files whereas the channel visitors have read only rights
I just did the survey. For this question:
How likely are you to merge two conversation threads into a single conversation thread?
Can we get an "I need this now" option?
Also, I now have semantic satiation with 'likely'.
Likely likely likely unlikely likely likely. It doesn't mean anything anymore!
For you all that want private channels and are saying it's not related your correct it's not directly related but it very likely related to how things are being implemented on the back end with other feature requests like merging channels, it's a big machine with lots of gears and they are just trying to plan ahead, Thought i would like an updated on private channels specifically as well :) just saying :)
I pretty much answered Very Unlikely to every question. Not sure what moving conversations and teams around has to do with anything but I've never had a reason to do any of that except because the stupid Reply button is easy to miss and people make a new thread when they meant to reply to an existing one.
i do not see the point of your survey???? HOW LONG IS THE JOKE WILL KEEP GOING