Ability to set permissions on channels for who has permissions to see the channel
This is essential for large organizations to control contents. It will drastically reduce the effort of managing permissions and reduces the number of mistakes, compared with setting permissions per video.
What is more interesting to you all, permissions on a single Channel (essentially a private Channel with custom permission settings) - or Group/team based pages where you can collaborate on multiple Group channels and videos?
Or, would you want to leverage the capabilites of modern groups across other products, like Outlook, Planner, Yammer, Skype, etc. and be able to set up a single group that works across those products?
@johndeu wrote:What is more interesting to you all, permissions on a single Channel (essentially a private Channel with custom permission settings) - or Group/team based pages where you can collaborate on multiple Group channels and videos? Or, would you want to leverage the capabilites of modern groups across other products, like Outlook, Planner, Yammer, Skype, etc. and be able to set up a single group that works across those products?
Custom permissions on a single Channel would be sufficient to start with.Creating group based pages would be a great addition to create a well managed structure when increasing the use of Stream.
Yes, this would be great. I would particularly like to idea of being able to make a PUBLIC channel which you can then drop videos into which could be the "OnDemand" face of our organisation for an external audience.
Not dissimilar to having your organisations on YouTube Channel.
Also need some way to manage "Owner" permissions to be more than a single user. Right now only the author or a global administrator can edit/delete a video. Some assests are organizational and need to be managed after an employee leaves.
And....who can upload to that channel !
How can we give staff acces to download videos that other people have uploaded? We'd like to have a temp upload all of our company videos to Stream and then have designers be able to download videos.
The channel management in Office 365 Video was perfect for IT Dpt. It was very simple to control who have access to what. With Stream, even the performance and appearance are far more superiors than O365 Video, the choices and possibilities from Admin perspective are really poor at this stage. Typically, users won't be able to set the correct access rights by themselves resulting in a mess were team-confidential videos are shared with the entire company. Please introduce a clearer user access management in Stream.
We use this security feature in O365 Video and won't be able to enable Stream corporate-wide until it can be enabled on Strean Channels as well. For a big company, it is essential.
As a teacher, O365 video still has better features than stream because of the ability to assign permissions to a channel. This way we can dedicate specific channels to staff, year levels etc. At present, Stream requires me to grant permissions to each video I add which is unacceptable.
If only there was an ability to sort videos better in O365 Video, we would stick with that. Using groups is not efficient in an educational context as the management is ongoing and constantly needs changing. Using the AD-security groups is much easier. Please ensure that Stream can have permissions assigned based on securiy groups so that we can easily restrict access.
I tried creating a staff channel, uploading a video and changing the permissions to staff only, but then found the video is not located in the channel. It only appears if you make the Channel company wide. Unfortunately, this means all the students will be able to view it.
Stream has the concept of groups, which is a set of people who have permissions on a concept. Stream also has channels, which are a way to organize your content within those groups. This should satisfy the idea request, please feel free to include another idea if you wish to see additional features.
Groups are great if you need one or two but what if you need 2,000. We don't have the resources to set that up. Like previous posts we need permission control without modern groups. Video channel permissions work well plan in education. This new stream offering is complex and confusing.
Another education user checking in, and Groups permissions are too complicated and do not meet our needs.
We need a way to create a channel that everyone in the district has permission to see, but only a few users have permission to edit. (Our users need to be able to do this for the school morning shows, as an example.) If we make a public group, then anyone can simply join the group and mess up the channels that schools have created. If we make a private group, no one can see the group channels.
As there are no specific channel permissions, I would hardly say that this is completed.
@Edward Heeren - For this use case you mentioned "We need a way to create a channel that everyone in the district has permission to see, but only a few users have permission to edit."
You mentioned that a Public group wouldn't work because anyone can join the group and mess up the channels.
We do have a special Stream setting that determines if members can contribute or if they are viewers only. I'm wondering if that setting is enough to cover your use case or not?
This is what I was thinking...
You make a public group.
In Stream you set the setting "Allow members to contribute" to "off".
You make anyone who needs to upload to the group an owner of the group.
Yes other people can join the group because it's public, but only the owners of the group can upload / create and edit channels in the group.
Creating a Public Channel in our institution will allow over 60,000 students comment and upload who knows what to the modern group. Sorry.. bad idea. In addition it doesn't stop anyone from adding the videos to every single Channel they feel like, making Channels pointless as you have no control over them. For an educational environment the existing 365 video permissions and channels just made sense. I'm really struggling to work out what the purpose was of these new controls.
Given the constraints on the existing Stream design and features I'd have to suggest we need it modified in the following way.
1. Admin Creates Group
2. Assign Owners - Users that can upload and edit videos (People/Groups)
3. Assign Viewers - People that can view videos in the group (People/Groups)... and I mean videos, not the rest of the Groups features like, files or calendar.
1. Admin Creates Channel
2. Assigns Owners - Users that can add videos to the Channel (People/Groups)
This allows us to do two things:
1. Create video channels where Staff and Students can see the content where they have specified access through the group permissions.
2. Ensure that channel content is consistent
@Mark Menadue - Thanks for the feedback and thoughts. So my solution above about a Public group in Stream where only owners can contribute in Stream falls apart in so much as anyone can upload/use the other parts of the O365 modern group (SharePoint, Outlook, Planner, etc)
I was following up on this feature request because we are evaluating 2 things - Stream using O365 Groups only and "Companywide channels". We are thinking about how to handle both of those in response to the feedback you and others have given in these areas. O365 Groups is the primary permission infrastructure that most O365 services are being built on and we need to participate in that, but we are also trying to balance that out with the fact that some customers aren't ready for Modern Groups yet and modern groups are just a flat list of individual owners or members. (You can't nest an AD Security group in a modern group and there isn't a viewer role).
@Marc Mroz - We can't move to O365 modern groups for a number of reasons, it's not that we don't want to.
1. We don't want to give student groups the features of a modern group
2. There is no way to synchronise an AD security group with AAD connect to a modern group nor is there a dynamic O365 group
3. Nesting as you already commented
Looking forward to your solution.
@Marc Mroz Thanks for that feedback. It's how we are having users use Stream for the moment, however for the aforementioned reasons all of the other features of modern groups cause issues when we have students joining a public group.
I second the concerns and solutions @Mark Menadue posed.
@Marc Mroz any update to these raised issues?
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.