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.
The recommended work around is like recommending a whole separate site in SharePoint to get the appropriate permissions mix when all you really need is different permissions on a discussion or document repository web part within that site.
Kevin Bishop commented
I get what your saying Suphatra but once again Microsoft is trying to do something different from something that already works. Your saying it all in the Bold Green Text "Try this instead". Slack users don't want to try this instead, we want the same baseline functionality but even better since we are already using Office 365.
Paul Fieber commented
Not viable to create separate private teams. Right now, teams seem to be invisible unless you are invited to join them, or at least I have not found a way to see teams that I am not already a member of. Therefore the distinction between Private and Public teams is a bit lost on me. Coupled with the inability to centrally manage team membership and resources, actual Private channels would be an acceptable workaround. I could create a team called Projects, for example, owned by that admin account. I could then create private channels for each project and manage their membership. It is still a hack to central management, but as things stand right now, everyone can create a team at will, and then other people who need to be on that time all come to me asking to be added to the membership. But I can't even find the team to add it. My test public team does not show up in the suggested Teams area, so even that doesn't seem to work very well. So centralised management first, private channels second would be the best solution for us.
@Suphatra: "This new feature should help many of you requesting private channels." It doesn't help me. The "new feature" actually forces us to do something in your product that feels more like a hacky-workaround than a feature.
David Rosenthal commented
Private channels help keep things organized without creating a lot of sprawl and duplication of work and content. Right now as others have said I'd have to have a Team for my whole team, and then a completely separate Team for the leadership members of that same team.
In doing so, I've ended up with two different file storage systems, two different Planner boards, two different team sites and calendars, etc etc etc. Some of these you can "hack" around potentially to do some permissions granting, but others simply won't cross over at all. Take Planner for example, say the Change team members of my larger team are using Planner to track their tasks. The completely separate leadership Team has no way to add that Planner board to their tabs since it cannot cross the boundary between two separate Teams. If these were separate channels however, the leadership team could simply pin the Change team's planner board and keep tabs on things without having to bounce around all over the place or potentially recreate that Planner board in a 2nd location and manually keep it in sync.
This concept of unique permissions is fairly pervasive in Office 365, and VERY well understood by this community. Maybe more of an engineering challenge since you're pushing the permissions trimming down to the Channel level where it sits at the Team level for now, but there is certainly value in doing so.
That's not a solution!
I work in an international team, in which there are several sub-teams per region. I don't want to create a separate team for all these sub-teams, because it's inconvenient and messy otherwise.
Private channels (i.e. channels where only several members are added and can see content) within a team are a MUST in order for my team to make Teams a success in our department.
It's not a solution. Please listen to your users, Micro$oft.
Andi Rustandi Djunaedi commented
people will end up creating a bunch of teams and each teams consist of only one channel.
in the end the team will be treated just like slack channel, not added benefit.
Gordan Redzic commented
Weak solution, private channels within a team are basically a must. Not sure why this is so hard. Already have too many teams as it is...
This is not a desire solution. Private channels would allow one team to have a leadership channel while all other channels are visible by all members. An entirely new team just for leadership is often redundant. Thank you!
Lol, "leave Slack and come to Teams because here at Micro$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.