 Actually has question here. How can I add one SharePoint private team site members? Show SharePoint site members group to a newly created SharePoint site and give them read-only permissions. I don't have an on-prem server, everything this is in the Cloud and SharePoint online. So when you create a SharePoint site, there are three default permission groups that are created. There's the owners, the members, and the visitors, and their permissions are full access or full control contribute, which lets them add and even delete things, but sometimes I don't agree with the deletion part of it. Then you have the visitors. Now, how that equates to teams, I have still figured out where the visitors come into play, because there's not really that role in teams, if it's a teams supported site or teams backend site. But if you add them to the visitor role, there's two you can change this or you can create your own custom group, but you can change it to view only or restricted view only, which view only they would be able to download and access the content offline if they needed to, but the restricted view allows them to only look at it, they can't print it, they can't download it, they can't change anything. So there's a couple of different levels there. I think there's 20-some different check boxes when you go to create a custom permission level that you can decide exactly what they're able to do. That would be my answer. Stacy, you're muted. Sorry. To me, teams assumes that they need permission to do something, not just view, which is why we don't see it in teams. If you have teams, you want them to do something, you want them to interact, collaborate, which is the whole purpose of it, right? If you have a scenario there where you do have a team, but want to restrict access, you can always go and have an unattached SharePoint site and library, have those permission levels, make sure those people are in there as visitors, and then any content that you put in that place, you'll still have access and control there, and you can add in and add to a tab and access that content. This is one of those things where, again, where people were struggling with the flatter architecture of teams saying, look, you can still have complexity. Just don't use the out-of-the-box SharePoint sites that are created when a team is created, but have yet a secondary SharePoint site that's standalone, and then provide access there. I'm not going to add. I don't use that anymore. I don't do that stuff anymore. I stick with the flat and the out-of-the-box, but you have those tools. Yeah. The only thing, the difficulty with that is the fact that you have to know which teams are set up that way and which ones are not. It's an administrative overhead to do those things. So you've got to keep that in mind along with that, because otherwise people are going to end up in the wrong thing with the wrong permissions and it's no better than document libraries when people are breaking permissions or document level permissions. But I'd say it's not a solution that scales. But if you're doing a one-off and you have that need and you are actively managing that, then you have that option. But you're right. It's not a scalable. You get hit by a bus. Good luck to the people taking that over. Document, document, document. Well, to your point, if you add or remove people, you have to remember there's multiple sources that are being surfaced in the team and those people have to be added to both sites or both permission groups. Or when you create the SharePoint site, the team SharePoint group can be used as the contributors or the owner's group of another SharePoint site. You don't want to duplicate or create exact same permission groups in two different sites when you can use the same one. Yeah. We don't have to create random ones. Just remember, whoever sets that up may not be the person that is the people who are answering the phone as support to help that person with their permission. So you're asking for a nightmare there. So document, make it public, so he knows that that has special permissions. Let's just clarify. It's a nightmare for out-of-the-box management and governance. Yes. But with third-party tools, it's pretty simple actually. Can be, can be, if you set it up properly. Yeah, but you can go and look at the profile of an individual. Somebody leaves the company, see every site, every team, every group, every community that they're a member of, and change that. Yeah. But then the support team, typically FYI admins have that access because they can see into the back-in, but who are the people that actually get that support call? It's not the admin. It's tier one support. Yeah. And they go, oh. Yeah. It's a balancing act, right? It's completely a balancing act. Well, I think, Stacey, we've done some projects together, and we always put the primary point of contact on the main SharePoint page. This is where you contact if you have an issue here. Don't call the help desk because they can help you reset your password, or doesn't power on, or don't have network access, whatever. Often they don't know, and may not even have access to the sites that you're having a problem with. The people web part is my friend. It's my friend. I always appreciate that, whether I'm going into a Yammer community or a SharePoint site or whatever, when I see that, like over on the right nav or the left nav, and see a link, a list of it, I just, right there, it just makes me think of that scene from Tommy Boy, you know, it's like, I'll see in that label that it's, you know, on there, it just gives me, it warms the heart to know that that, that your protection is there of, that's guaranteed. And then he does the whole thing about, you know, his head in the bowl and being able to, you know, you know the quote I'm talking about. One of the best movies ever. So, and the thing that I'll say is someone who's been listening to this, this conversation, and all the points have been very valid, but if you're trying to jam a read-only user into a collaborative tool like Teams, then I would want to take a step back and say, is this the right tool, right, for the right function? Right, yeah. Right, you don't need to use what you can, but, you know, sometimes you have to advocate for the right tool in the right, right place at the right time. Well, how, like, how would I go and solve that today? If I needed to give a bunch of view-only access to content, I'm going to go through all those other steps. I just go out in one drive. I create a folder, the view-only, and then I provide that link out to the people that needed it for that. Done. Yeah. Yeah, but no, here's the problem with that. Christian, you win the lottery and run away, and all of that content is sitting in your one drive and people are expecting to go find it. Now, their links are all broken. So, you're saying all this stuff. Are you trying to elicit an emotional response from me? Yeah. I just won the lottery. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. Really? Really. But the people behind do care. I stopped saying hit by a bus because that's bad. How does that impact me, Sherry? Yeah. Don't say hit by a bus because I would be that person. I'm looking at that name. No, no, no. Wait, no. I didn't win the lottery, then get hit by a bus. No, you used it. You said I get hit by a bus, and I stopped using that phrase because I'm like, that's just asking for bad juju. I'd rather say you won the lottery. I'm with it on the whole one drive thing because you know how it sets up. If the manager gets that notification, hey, this person's leaving you got 30 days, right? Or whatever you defaulted to, right? And if that manager doesn't go get that data, you lose that data, right? Now, I love the fact that Microsoft put in that link now that you can generate as an admin as long as you have access and give it to anybody and then get into that one drive so you can go get that data, right? But still, you're going to have those broken links, but at least they're giving us alternate methods of getting in there to get it, but someone still has to do it. Right. And we're talking about one drive for business and providing a folder with those rules around it, even if I'm hit by the bus or I win the lottery and run off, I buy an island or whatever. If you're impacted. I'm lost to say. I'm no longer there physically. That ownership of that content in that site remains with the company. Somebody there, it rolls up and admins get that access. But again, the problem is solved though of not changing the flat structure of teams, not changing any of those permission levels and for this purpose of giving read-only access to a subset of documents very quickly without headaches. That solves it. Well, it just reinforces my philosophy. You have to have information architecture. It needs to be planned. B, you have to have a documentation strategy based on the lifecycle of that document. And not everything belongs in a team's file library. You don't take your J drive and dump it all into that one document library. You have 10,000 documents. You got to look at your documents and say, are these ratified? I mean, are these gospel documents? We're not going to put them in a document folder that can be edited anymore. That needs to be moved to another library and maybe provide a link back to that read-only version of that library. But you're making my point for me. Well, one other thing I'd like to add is as a person who doesn't gamble, I don't play the lottery. Statistically, it doesn't really change that my chances of winning. So I have an equal chance of winning the lottery. So it could happen. That's all I'm saying. Everyone pray for me that I win the lottery. Of course, it's getting hit by a bus. We always found it better to email them a check and say I would have lost this.