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.
This is not a desire solution. Private channels would allow one team to have a leadership channel while all other channels are visible by all members. An entirely new team just for leadership is often redundant. Thank you!
Lol, "leave Slack and come to Teams because here at Micro$oft we don't implement what you want and do what we want instead."
I get that, but it leads to awkward constructs like "admin team" and "admin team leadership" ... the existence of the team doesn't need to necessarily be private, but the content does.
Just a person commented
As others mentioned, private channels are still needed. Making teams private is NOT a solution. Being able to have a channel for management, rather then having multiple groups, would benefit us greatly
Our group is looking to exploit teams and the concept of 'minimum necessary' is something we need to make it work. we want to make our team 'invite only' and then make some channels 'invite only' as we do forensic work for our organization, and the channels would be 'need to know.' we would like to have our core team have access to the general and 'open' channels, then as private channels are created, channel owners can invite people into them.
As for sharepoint, it seems trivial (speaking as a non coder) to call the sharepoint APIs create a folder for the channel, and if the channel is private, set up an ACL so only channel members can access the sharepoint folder. The idea is once it's private, it doesn't inherit the parent access controls, but has its own.
There might be a problem implementing this feature due to the SharePoint integration.
Each Team has a folder within the SharePoint and each Team member has access to it.
Each channel has a folder within the Team folder and inherits access from the parent...
This doesn't cut it, as many other have mentioned. I just want to bring up: why is there the feature to tag a channel within a team, if everyone within the team is in every channel?
i agree with all the other folks. we have one big channel. and within that channel we have 4 sub teams, that we need to lock that down to only those that need to be in that team. Having people crossing over and butting into conversations really defeat the purpose of having these subteams. In slack we were able to lock these down. the workaround doesn't really help us.
Mike O'Connor commented
Lack of private channels is literally the only thing holding us up from rolling out Teams in my company. The suggested workaround could "work" but that's not a valid long term solution and we'd probably look into another product.
Let me add to the voices that say your workaround is no workaround at all. We asked for private channels, not public teams. We knew what we wanted, and still want what we asked for. Public vs private teams might solve 10% of my need for private teams, but it's a temporary improvement while we wait for a real solution. Please show how much you love us by changing your status back to working on it :)
Stace Hamilton commented
This workaround doesnt help us. We will have a team of people but often there is someone not part of that team that needs to see specific content in the team and not all content.
If you want to take on Slack you should probably start by having all of their features, then expanding. Not suggesting weird workarounds just to have a private channel.
Victor Nava commented
It would be important to support private channels inside a team... sometimes, especially on bigger teams, we are divided into smaller teams so having private channels would be important so we can share information only relevant to some members and not everyone on the team
Team's helpful video outline channels as "focused conversations for departments, and projects". It would be idea to limit the viability of those channels as oppose to creating new teams.
the work around that was provided would mean that for each channel that we would like, we would actually be better off in creating a team. meaning multiple teams and not many channels as oppose to limited number of teams with multiple private channels.
To echo what others said - it is superfluous to create a whole new team just because 2/4 people on another Team need access to specific material. There's quite a bit of justification to have a private channel created over a private team.
Private channels would very much limit the number of Teams to be made inside an organisation. Sensitive docs within a team would be shared in a private channel in stead of creating extra private teams.
Please add private channels to the Microsoft Teams!
Jenny A commented
This is not a replacement for private channels. each time I work on a specific document / meeting which has some sensitive content with 2 / 3 people in my team, I don't want to create another team.... I would end up with n teams and my life would be unbearable.
Microsoft, please listen to your users!!!
Brian Fitzgerald commented
I agree with the comments that this is not a replacement for private channels. Additionally, the combination of allowing anyone to join a public team and private teams not being discoverable in search removes the usefulness of a public teams feature for us. If private teams could be searchable and users could send a request to the team owner to join then we would use these features. This would still not replace the need for private channels we would also like to be discoverable with admittance controlled by the private channel owner upon request.
Jeff West commented
We need private channels. This is not a good alternative. The app already gets slow when you have more than one Team.
Jake Moore commented
100% agree. I have far too many top-level teams here. My main requirement is to keep 'channel' permissions separate to 'team' permissions but currently the only way to do this is to create a new top-level team which becomes overwhelmingly large when a new channel is created for each incident. If I could somehow either assign separate permissions (user access control lists?) to each channel this would solve my problem. Nested teams with the ability to set permissions for each nested team could work too.