My feedback

  1. 17,653 votes
    Sign in
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    953 comments  ·  Public » Teams and Channels  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    RK commented  · 

    I am new to MS-Teams. It baffles me how this feature request can be sitting in the backlog shelf for 3 yrs and not make the cut to development. I guess that's the difference between a scattered mind and an organized mind (or a corporation vs a start-up, you get the drift). I get the fact that you want everyone to create hundreds of thousands of separate teams for each topic/project but there is also a group of users that like organization...and don't like having to recreate teams every time a new topic/project develops. When you are dealing with a large organization or enterprise, channels makes sense...archiving channels makes even more sense (given the 200 channel limitation versus unlimited). Please review your use case scenarios and sales/user guide documentation. A good example is your reference to an org-wide team. Setting up an org-wide team is a great idea which acts as a shell where nuggets of informational data transpire across separate channels. But what happens when you hit the 200 channel limit? Do you want organizations to archive the team and start over every time they hit the 200 channel limit? Each channel has its own lifecycle, what if you can't archive a team because there are channel(s) that are still actively used? Can we move the active channel to another team so we can archive the old team? Oh wait, that feature is on backlog as well (https://microsoftteams.uservoice.com/forums/555103-public/suggestions/16939708-move-channels-into-other-teams)...go figure. I hope you reconsider your decision and move this feature up your priority list. It's the difference between treating MS-Teams as a toy versus a solution.

Feedback and Knowledge Base