Rising Stars are recognized for providing high-quality answers to other users. Rising Stars receive a certificate of achievement and are on the path to becoming Community Leaders.
Rising Stars are recognized for providing high-quality answers to other users. Rising Stars receive a certificate of achievement and are on the path to becoming Community Leaders.
@April Chi & Atlassian. Thanks for bringing this new feature!
So now it is possible to have teams which members are those of a linked group: Group -> Team
Have you also considered the other way around?
That is, having a group which members are those of a linked team: Team -> Group
This last option would enable end users to effectively be able to manage specific group membership, which would have a lot of use cases for delegating access management from Org/Site admins to the end users.
Thanks for reaching out and thank you for the feedback. Apologies for the extremely late response.
So now it is possible to have teams which members are those of a linked group: Group -> Team
Have you also considered the other way around?
That is, having a group which members are those of a linked team: Team -> Group
This last option would enable end users to effectively be able to manage specific group membership, which would have a lot of use cases for delegating access management from Org/Site admins to the end users.
We have not, or at least not yet. For now, to avoid complexity, groups will remain the single source of truth. Happy to hear more about your use case though on why this would be useful. Are you saying that you want end users to be able to control group membership via team membership given they might not have necessary privileges to manage groups?
Our customers use an "Assigned group" concept to allocate work items to a responsible group rather than just an individual. Currently, we manage this with a custom field, but this doesnāt provide a real connection between individuals and the group.
Using Atlassian Teams could solve this gap. However, thereās one major issue: we cannot set a default Team per request type in the Help Center. This is critical for us because we need to define a default Assigned group for specific problem types.
While automation could be used as a workaround, itās not practicalāmanaging over 200 request types with automation rules and mappings would be far too complex and time-consuming. Assets is also an option, but the Team overview page would give way better overview and user experience.
So, do you know if there are plans to make it possible to set Team as a hidden field with a default value in a request type? This is the only blocker we have now to start using Team.
Our customers use an "Assigned group" concept to allocate work items to a responsible group rather than just an individual. Currently, we manage this with a custom field, but this doesnāt provide a real connection between individuals and the group.
Using Atlassian Teams could solve this gap. However, thereās one major issue: we cannot set a default Team per request type in the Help Center. This is critical for us because we need to define a default Assigned group for specific problem types.
While automation could be used as a workaround, itās not practicalāmanaging over 200 request types with automation rules and mappings would be far too complex and time-consuming. Assets is also an option, but the Team overview page would give way better overview and user experience.
So, do you know if there are plans to make it possible to set Team as a hidden field with a default value in a request type? This is the only blocker we have now to start using Team.
33 comments