Questions / feedback / suggestions:
1. Is there a reason why logic for team selection, adding an asset to a certain team etc. is different between tools? (e.g. in lists there are checkboxes for selecting multiple teams whereas in forms there is a dropdown / single select. In forms it's possible to add a form to a team from the "actions" dropdown menu, whereas in lists that is not possible and so on...). Please, please align for the sake of reducing unnecessary friction.
2. What logic controls the order in which the teams are shown? The order in wich they are created or just random? When can we have a logic to set the order in which the teams are displayed, e.g. alphabetical? (team structure will vary over time for most)
3. Is there an official deep-dive into how the "primary" and "additional" team belonging logic is supposed to work?
4. What is the reason behind the limit to 1 primary team? The consequence for many will be that one have to create a "master" team and then put all child teams into that master team so that "super admins" can access all child team content. Example: Brand A and Brand B have the same super admin. That admin can only be primary in "team A" or "team B" if they are separated. So, in order to be super admin of both Brand A and Brand B, there needs to be two separate child teams in an "All brands" team. All brands > Brand A, Brand B. This then creates additional confusion as the default filter in e.g. forms says "All teams" so there would be both "All teams" and "All brands" as a possible filter in this case... The quick solution would be to allow multiple primary teams just as it's possible to have multiple additional teams
5. Consider to complexity of the primary and additonal team logic vs the user profile rights. Why not simply allow a user to belong to any suitable team, then control edit/view rights via the user profile. Drawback: If you have edit rights for a certain type of asset you would have edit rights for that asset type for all teams to which you belong, but that simplifies things to a level where most can understand it in my opinion. (It's complex enough as it is for the average user to understand what controls what to add yet another dimension with primary and additional.)
6. It seems that if you belong to the last level in a team structure, you will not see the "teams" filter menu in e.g. forms. This is OK as there would be a single option in that menu for this user, however it also seem to disable the ability for that user to allocate an asset to another team? Doesn't seem logical. This would mean that an admin of "Brand A" above would have to go through the super admin (which has access to both Brand A and Brand B) to assign a certain asset to "Brand B" and thus admin of Brand A can't help admin of Brand B on e.g. cloning a certain campaign, only the super admin could do that type of work.
7. Related to point 4, 5 and 6. Is it necessary to control partitioning by team AND user? It would be simpler by just running partitioning by team and if you want partitioning, you add your user(s) to one or more teams. The current setup creates confusing acccess situations where it's difficult to understand why a certain user has access to a certain asset; is it because they are on the team or because they created a certain asset? (The reaons is that by default an asset belongs to the user that created it, and the primary (?) team to which that user belongs.)
Happy to take this conversation deeper over zoom 🙂