 A question from Mary who's looking for some advice, please. We have our set teams, but we have many cross-team projects and work within our organization. What is the best way to have a home for these projects that need people from multiple teams? A home to post or develop files and tasks, everything you do within a normal team, but with variable people? One idea was one team with everyone needed and then private channels for each project. However, the concern was about the limit of 30 private channels and also management of private channels and additional share points in the future. I also read that Planner doesn't work with these. So hit me up with any ideas. Share channels? Share channels available in public preview today. So all you have to do is go to your three dots and teams click option or settings, excuse me, and turn on public preview, and as long as your admin has also done the same thing, you'll be able to use share channels, which solves a lot of this, like a surprisingly large amount of this question. Better support for apps like Planner, the ability to add people who are not a member of the team to that channel specifically. Does Planner work with shared channels? Because I didn't work with private channels. The shared channels does not have those same limitations. Now, shared channels have a few limitations, but apps work in shared channels, meetings work in shared channels. Okay. I haven't had the opportunity to play with that yet, so. The downside is still some of the mess that it can create, like the share point stuff doesn't stop. You've still got exillion share points. Once you go that way, you can't merge them back again. That's one of the things that's a real downside of a lot of this. Again, a lot of them go, okay, we're done with it now, we need to bring all that information back over into our team. They're not with us anymore on the project. It's like, no, it's one way or the other. Once you go that route, there's not coming back from that route. Yeah, but if you have strong content lifecycle practices in place, and you want to retire those things anyway, and wipe out anything that's not in use, and so that just, yeah, there's just more governance that needs to happen around that, but I don't really see that as a problem. Well, I also ask how long is the project, cross-team projects going for? Because if they're a long period of time, and you're going to have quite a bit of history, why aren't you creating a team for it in the long run? Could you not have a team that in six months, you then archive if it's going for a long, if it's really short and sharp projects, then sure, having the private or shared channels is fine, but how long are they going for is my next question, because otherwise, what's wrong with creating a team for that group? Great point. If you are automating your provisioning process, you can set up and have a slightly different template, so the features that are, but how is it any different than in the other project where you invite a bunch of people that are the stakeholders into that? It's just a different mix that's across different business units. With those people, it shouldn't matter. Yeah. Again, one of those questions that would benefit from having to be able to ask other follow-up questions of why would that be an issue? Maybe there's a specific reason, maybe they need to keep separation within that. I've worked in orgs where there's firewall between that, and you have to be very careful about what's being shared. Again, there's just more governance that can be applied, and what those guiding factors are, the rules that need to be in place, the guardrails to make sure that people are doing things properly, and who has visibility to certain content, what is the constitution of that, the state of the content, how it needs to be managed over time, and then if you have a strong governance and process in place, something that's similar to ours, whether it's internal only, whether it's cross-functional, whether we have external groups that it's on a clockwork, 90 days as the team owner, I get prompted to re-verify all of the teams that I own, the sites that I own, all of the members within the sites that I own, I have to go through and re-approve and say, yes, this is still valid, this is still out there, and I'm still managing this so that if I were to get hit by a bus, and nobody said yes to those questions, that it would be archived and be handled without me there. I've got a couple of clients, one in particular at the moment, where they do a mass amount of big projects, and then they have a whole heap of small projects. The big projects get their own team, but the smaller projects is literally one team, and each channel is the project, and that's where they live in it, and all the people that are involved on the projects are actually all in there, and it's about how transparent can you be, how confidential or private is the information. If it is, it's okay, and you can learn from each other on all the different projects. If you want to develop, most people don't, they're too busy just trying to get their job done anyway, so they pin that one project to the top in the big long list of 100 projects in there. It could just be, work out loud, work together, be transparent, doesn't really matter if you're all in one team on projects together. I have to add one quick thing. I made a mistake, and it's important to recognize that Planner is not supported in shared channels, which makes sense because it has to have an Office 365 or Microsoft 365 group behind it. Right. That was my right side. I knew it. I just wasn't going to say anything, just I'm glad that you. You were going to have to let me fail publicly. I was just going to call you out on it via Twitter, Max. That's where I do all my trolling now is only on Twitter, so say nothing but nice things out here, save all the negative for Twitter.