Thanks very much for confirming this, Tony. Agreed fully about the positive being sharing with larger teams and that it is dynamically kept up to date with whatever the host team’s membership is at any time. I just feel it would be better that one can undo this team binding for the shared channel after creation if needs be (not unlike breaking permissions of a SharePoint subsite at a later stage from its parent site). Failing that, a larger warning about this checkbox on the shared channel creation dialog box.

I have an issue with my Room List. Although each room’s cities all are populated correctly in each resource, their locations all show under one location. We just have one list currently containing all conference rooms. Is there a way to change the location of a room list? Or would it be better to delete that list and recreate each city as it’s own room list?

What happens is that you bind the membership in the shared channel to the roster (membership) of the hosting team. To remove the user, you need to remove them from the team. The upside of the mechanism is that it makes it very easy to share channels with large teams (or even small teams). The downside is that you lose some control.

That’s the nature of software development now… Constant change.

I do have ideas, but I suggest that you engage the help of someone experienced who has been through a T2T migration involving encrypted content. There is no substitute for experience.

We are experiencing the same scenario described in the paragraph:

“The same issue of how to handle protected content exists for tenant-to-tenant migrations when millions of emails and documents can move from one tenant to another. User accounts created in the destination tenant can open unprotected files, but it is likely that rights assigned to protected files do not include your email address and block access. Remove encryption from documents before the transfer can be made (the same process is used to recover protected documents left behind by former employees), but it is painful is slow.”

Do you have any strategy recommendations for “reclassifying” protected files en masse?

We thought about MCAS, but it seems that it has limitations for changing encrypted files through governance actions.

As such, if one wants to have more control over who in the host Team can access the shared channel later, it would be better to leave that checkbox deselected when creating the channel and rather manually add the host Team as a ‘member’ afterwards (so that you can more easily customise who in the Team can have access at any point).

All too true.