How can we make Microsoft Teams better?

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)

18,459 votes
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Angela Sze shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    1573 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • Fadi Rizk commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Second @Kassidy. This is a simple request. Certain channels need to be accessed by a certain number of people on a Team. That's it.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I don't think I completely understand or follow the 5 distinctions. Understand that its more or less just shuffling around words and that the problem space is much larger with teams because of sharepoint. Absent sharepoint imagine its a easier problem to solve.

        Private channel (slack wise) = Secret (invisible to everyone except invited members)
        Public (slack) = channel visible to anyone and you have to join it.

        That is as simple as it gets. The other channels are not necessarily are not private, but I definitely see the mapping problem with sharepoint which is a problem space that slack does not have (for good or bad).

        Teams/Sharepoint has a much more robust security and sharing model that Slack. Whether that is good or not I imagine depends on your orgnazation size. For 5-10 people seems totally crazy, for 100-1000 people totally reasonable.

        I see the mapping problem and the ambiguity. I dont necessarily agree with the distinctions. I would sumbit the words used (my 2 cents) are confusing and equally ambigious. Definitely not saying the ones below are better either, but trying to keep it at one word and not trying to present a problem without some sort of resemablence of a solution (however bad it might be).

        - Public = Public-Open (visible anywhere including outside the org and anyone can join)
        - Community/Gated = Public-Invitation(visible anywhere including outside the org, must be invited)
        - Company/Organization = Company-Open (only visible inside the org and anyone in the org can join; outside the org must be invited)
        - Group/Team/Crew = Company-Invitation (only visible inside the org, must be invited)
        - Private = Secret (invisible to everyone except existing members, must be invited)

        All that being said I would be totally happy with just Company and Private channels. If you have guest access that that simplifies the above down by 2 I would guess.

        Public
        Company/Org
        Private

      • c b commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Seems fine. However it seems the Public channels are not so public. Our users still have to be invited it seems even though we converted them to public.

      • ed hansberry commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        So, is one of these five suitable for this scenario? We want a team for our purchasing department (all internal) and each channel is a vendor. We would invite the vendors to a particular channel. Insiders should see it all, external are totally sandboxed, cannot even see other channels (vendors).

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Agree with Kassidy's approach. We don't want to make multiple teams when they're not needed. Essentially the private channel is a sub-team within the larger team that only certain people can view. Whether it be task related or a manager-level channel, it doesn't matter. It just needs to be a channel that is restricted to certain people with the team.

      • Kassidy commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Those definitions are fine regarding visibility, but they seem to be more applicable to a Team than a Channel. We are looking for private Channels, period. We need to be able to restrict access to individual Channels in a Team. For example, if we have 10 people on a project but only 5 are involved in one particular task, shouldn't we be able to make a channel that involves only those 5 people? I'm not sure why MS didn't understand this request to start.

      • Nick Chappell commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I think that John is close in that he is describing access levels which is a great idea, however what I think most people are looking for is a way to restrict access to individual channels rather than allowing all users access to all channels based on being part of a team. If this feature could have both the levels that John stated AND what people are asking for that would be huge, but if you take the current access level that exists today and apply that to individual channels I think most people will be satisfied.

      • Jason Mayde commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Internally we are calling something like this restricted channels. We have various Teams created for different clients for our employees to collaborate around that client. For example, let's call the client "ACME". Within the structure of the client account team, we have various levels of employees. From interns to VPs. At the moment, if the senior managers and VPs wanted to have a conversation that lower level employees do not need to see or be a part of, they need to start a group chat. (think conversations about the performance of a lower level employee). It kind of takes away from the contextual nature of a Team and keeping all Team relevant conversions under that one Team. So having the ability to create a "Managers" Channel in that ACME team that was restricted to only the managers would be exactly what we are looking for.

      • Giulio Vannini commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Hi Suphatra, John's definition is totally fine, but don't see the realistic implementation of a public-open team within an Enterprise. Every external partner needs to register and authenticate on Azure AD anyway (in our case MFA) to access any org tenant resources ...

      • John Black commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Please stop using only the words "Public" and "Private". By themselves, these are too vague. Reading through the comments here, I think there really needs to be 5 distinct types:

        - 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)

        -John

      • Nuno Magalhães commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This is a must have feature for our company to start using Teams. We need this in order to create the following structure for each team:

        Group: IT Team (50 members)
        - Channel: Project 01 (20 members)
        - Channel: Project 02 (15 members)
        - Channel: Project 03 (10 members)
        - Channel: Project 04 (5 members)

      • JT Raclowski commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        With using Team we have it so each department is a team and they use channels for their projects. Our Development Group uses Teams but currently has a different Team for each project as there is no private channels. We don't want developers distracted with alerts and issues from project B when they are assigned to project A. We also want it all under 1 team but as of now that is not an option. It would be a great feature to beable to assign users to different channels under 1 team.

      • Gregiboy commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This is a big requirement for me too before looking to deploy in our organisation (1,000's of people). Here's my two pennies at trying to solve this: "How about being able to group teams?".

        I understand architecturally, and because of sharepoint integration (one-to-many model), it is not easy to give each channel its own permission model. Maybe instead of trying to make channel having their own permission within a team, how about being able to 'group' teams together, each team having their own permission already. Instead of looking down, looking up. Does this make sense?

      • Vi commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The possibility to create chats within each channel with only subset of the members of the Team.

      • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Allow Private Channels within the Team Structure so that only selected members of that channel can see and participate in the conversation. Example: Managers Channel - Only managers are part of this channel and are free to discuss issues openly without the rest of the team having visibility to their comments.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base