Conversion of threads into discussions

[mrsimpson]

With reply-based threads almost in the wild (#13996), I can already see the following need:

Motivation

Once multiple threads which tend to become long-runners within the same channel have been created, it is becoming more and more difficult to navigate them.
Also, I'd like to be able to join an expert into a particular thread without having to add them to the entire private parent channel, which contains sensitive information

Proposal

Allow conversation of a thread into a discussion. Once this is executed (todo: by whom should this be possible? Proposal: Owner, moderator of the parent room as well as the author of the initial message), the messages should be made available in a separate room. All participants who replied inthe thread shall be the members.
This operation does not have to be reversible, imho - though it was nice if the messages of the discussion could still be visualized inline for convenience.

[dusatvoj]

Any news with this issue?

[PackElend]

We use TEAMS at the office, wherein threading (whereby only one level) is still and properly will be possible when talking in channels. It is not possible when you chat.
Moreover, I'm forced to use Slack, which offers threads (side chats) as well. So you can say it is a big thing.

This gets me to a different aspect. May I add my thoughts about threading, side chat or grouping. Although #13843 is a much richer discussion but closed so I post it here.

We may start in the very past. there were chatting tools like IRC clients and simple forums. The right to exist of the first one was to exchange information quickly or just talk, nothing to conserve said things. The latter's right was to conserve to discuss things, searching for solid answer/solution what persists.

Over the decade's technology improved to make either thing more comfortable what led to the rise of here mentioned communication tools or apps like phpBB, discourse or vanilla forums besides many commercial apps.
In particular, the communication tools try to poach in the territory of forum apps, what there never were intend to do by their innermost character. It is tried to preserve information or have long ongoing discussions.

I currently work mainly with Slack and TEAMS, both trying to allow to have separées by either allowing to replay to answer (quoting/one level thread) or split them (side-chats /channels/groups).

For sure that helps to keep the interface clean but it often fails as people often answer by a new reply instead of replying to an existing statement. In particular, in slack people missing that there is a thread belonging to a message, so you are having discussions around the same topic in parallel.
In such cases, I would love to be able to move messages to the right discussion and even make them shown in multiple threads as those parallel discussions tend to go slightly in different directions where some answers are useful in either discussion.
I would think more about the git-tree, where you merge or split things easily without losing context. Such an approach would help to understand how a discussion was started and how it was influenced. May It’s Time We Talked About Tags what can repelace group names, thread headers etc.

The main challenge is still how to find old important content. There are features like staring, pinning and favourites but all these things get easily messy. In slack and TEAMS, it isn't easy to find certain things easily. It is rather frustrating, as their innermost character notifying the user about something which lasts for a short period of time but quite often statements are made what should be conserved for a longer period, in particular, if is aimed to reduce emails.
For that purpose, there should be an integration of a documentation app, to make information easier findable. Discourse describes it well in their blog entry Effectively using Discourse together with group chat but even they are not perfect. I find things in their forums by using google than going through the forum's flat structure what is not that intuitive as may mention elsewhere.

The discussion about flat or threaded is quite extensive
Web Discussions: Flat by Design
Why does Jeff Atwood's Discourse forum software use flattened discussion instead of threaded?
Discussions: Flat or Threaded?
Web Discussions: Flat by Design
...
but in the end, you have to make sure, that if a new participant joins a chat, that he or she can easily see what discussion are ongoing and how they emerged, plus what important things were discussed/decided, to be able to contribute quickly.

[JJonesAtAvaya]

Would be nice to be able convert a direct message chat to a discussion as well
in order to invite others in and still see the context