Teams Channel Meetings invitations only send to (external) guest users
Recently I'm facing an issue with the scheduling of Teams-Meetings within Teams Channels. When a Team Member schedules a Meeting from a Channel all the (external) guest users receive an invitation in Outlook for their Calander, but none of the (internal) members receive one. So the meeting is only visible in the Calander of guest users and not in the Calander of my collegues.
This worked without any problems before. I tried with multiple O365 Tenants and both the installed desktop client and Teams webclient.
Massimo Cimichella commented
If I create a meeting in a channel I want to invite who has to participate, why all guest users are invited automatically?
Vicki Maloney commented
When will this issue be fixed. Having MS Teams add people as Optional to a meeting is not acceptable. It is disruptive to the people that are being added as well as being disruptive to the meeting. I end up using the first 5 minutes of the meeting telling the "Optional" people that were automatically added that they don't need to attend this meeting and that MS automatically added them. Then they ask me why MS would do that. Please fix this ASAP!
Microsoft provided a 'workaround' for this which is some PowerShell that needs to be run on each individual TEAM every time a new external user is added to its members list. Yes. EVERY TIME and, to top it off, the script must be run by a Global Admin. Yea, right, our GA is going to want to be in this loop in order to maintain an update, consistent experience for our users and their TEAMS. So, while much effort was made to come up with this workaround, it was utterly useless to us.
They need to fix it, plain and simple.
We are experiencing the same thing. We have spent many months on a ticket with Microsoft asking them to explain why ANYONE would receive an invitation if we didn't explicitly add them to the invite list for a channel meeting....internal or external and their answer is they recognize the inconsistency and inaccuracy of it but that it is that way 'by design' which is a lame answer.
This is clearly a bug that needs fixed. This needs to be voted up for sure but it is obscured by the fact that there are several uservoice entries referring to the same type of problem but worded and titled slightly differently. For example,
Not sure how to get this on their radar and fix list but it needs to be.