Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 15,943 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

      1396 comments  ·  Public » Teams and Channels  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
      needs your feedback  ·  Suphatra responded

      Hey Microsoft Teams users — I want you to weigh in on new features around channels and group chats. The engineering team and I have put together this survey to find out how you want to see channels improve. You can fill it out here: https://microsoft.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_esTxHdABLQxKLvn

      And I’m still waiting on approval to get you a good update about Private Channels. I can say that we ARE working on it, fervently.

      Thanks and ping me any time, for anything at all: www.twitter.com/skprufo or sparavi@microsoft.com. I’m a little behind on email but catching up, so apologies for delays there!

      Suphatra

      Anonymous commented  · 

      I too waited for this change, but then I realized that by building Teams on on the back of SharePoint and with membership being managed at the Group level, it seemed like it would be insanely hard to have Private Channels. Even if there was a nice interface that allowed you to lock down that one SharePoint Document Folder for that Channel, how would you do things like assign sensitive Action item in Planner for that locked channel since Planner is managed at the Group level? What I ended up doing to solve this problem was to create another Private Team so it too had a full set of resources (document library, planner, etc.). I realized that there wasn't a practical limit on the number of Groups we can create in O365. For the original larger "Team" this new Team doesn't even exist in their Teams list. In some ways I think that is better than having a Channel that people can see but are blocked from. For this smaller Team that is a sub-set of the larger Team, they of course see this both Teams in their Teams list. This means the more private space sits at one higher level in the Teams list in the App versus existing as a Channel nested in the larger team. I haven't found it to be a problem. The search function looks for files and conversations across all Teams. The activity feed aggregates what you need to see across all your teams for you so there isn't a lot of clicking around. I've been doing this split-team approach for about 6 months for now and have seen that about 95% of the content and activity exists in the larger Team, with the few private things, like HR-sensitive documents and conversations and Planner assignments exist in the smaller Team. And for even smaller private things we use Private Named Chats that we keep pinned. So while a Private Channel in a Team with full access to all the feature like Planner would be even better, this alternative comes with a pretty low friction level in actual day to day use. Where this solution works well is like having a Department Team, but then a separate team for the managers or direct reports. I'm on several of these hybrid Teams in my role in middle management and its very easy to manage as a consumer and contributor. Some of the teams I'm on have no membership overlap with each other, others have some common members. Some of my managers have their own Teams that I don't have visibility into and don't really need it. I get there may be use scenarios for some arrangements that make this untenable, but I wonder how may of those there are. I work in an org with 10,000+ people (but Teams is still pretty early in the adoption curve).

      Anonymous commented  · 

      I waited for awhile and then took a different approach. Seems to be working.

      Anonymous supported this idea  · 

    Feedback and Knowledge Base