Team grouping organization
As we migrate all our regions and offices to Teams, we have started to realize that being able to identify Team's purpose adds some level of complexity.
We are proposing to add to the UI a way to create "Groups" and not related Teams under its correspondent group.
Just like we have Favorites, there would be other headings we can give names and move teams underneath of them.
We believe this will avoid confusion, for both experienced users and novice users.
This is "under review" - put your votes here - https://microsoftteams.uservoice.com/forums/555103-public/suggestions/19169926-custom-group-categories-for-teams
Not hopeful since this similar one for channels was just closed
Sean Ellis commented
I think that this should be part of a much larger organization rework. As I commented on this thread: https://microsoftteams.uservoice.com/forums/555103-public/suggestions/16939708-move-channels-into-other-teams
Ideally, each item (channel, team, chat, file repository, folder, tab, user, group of items, etc.) should be an independent node in a graph of items. The team owner should be able to decide how these are arranged.
An item should be able to be: moved, grouped, sorted, linked (so it can be at more than one place in the hierarchy), copied, copied with descendants, copied as a template (i.e. all the descendants but with none of their content preserved), saved as a template, published for others to use, hidden, shown, deleted, archived, or popped out into their own independent window.
All items should inherit settings from their parents by default but should be allowed to have their own settings which override or supplement the parents. This includes names, permissions, colors, fonts, notification settings, layout options, etc.
All items should preserve their state when not in view, so that switching views does not lose your place in a conversation or a file view.
All items should cache as much of their state locally as is sensible, in order to speed up interaction and search.
There should be no arbitrary limits. If I need 15000 people in a chat, then that's a conscious choice based on a real or perceived need. If there are performance consequences for exceeding internal limits, make people aware but don't prevent them from deciding to proceed anyway.
Scott Pollard commented
I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion.