Best way to export a list of entra users that are within certain groups
Having to do an audit at work of about 2300 users to see how many have multiple 365 licenses(e3 and an f3) so we can then fix this. When I go into entra and find the licensing groups we have that assign the license, I am able to see the user list but there's no option to export. What is the best way to isolate these users who are doubled up and what's the best way moving forward to automate and ensure this cannot happen?
As some contextual info, we assign licenses based on groups(f3 assigned, e3 assigned etc). Is this also the best way to do this?
My current brainstorming has led me to a few potential solutions though I'm not familiar enough with what entra is capable of to know if they're viable.
Option one: write a script(I assume that entra would already have this as a built in feature, but if not, script it) that when a user is disabled in Entra, all groups and licenses are wiped UNLESS you add them to an exception group before hand.
Option 2: create a rule within the existing groups that says "if apart of e3 license group, cannot be apart of f3 license"
Continuing to brainstorm here but would like some outside opinions so that next year I don't have to manually go through 2300
Just reading this, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage At least from my perspective.
Looking at this, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified That’s what changes the context. This could age very differently in a week. Others will probably see it differently.
this reads stronger on paper than in practice and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone That’s what makes this interesting. We’ll see how people react over time.
On the surface, this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s where the disagreement starts That part stands out. Interested to see the follow-up. That’s just my read on it.
Without overthinking it, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here which explains why reactions are split That’s the impression it gives me.
Looking at this, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome That’s the key detail here. That’s the impression it gives me.
Stepping back, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage and that friction is hard to ignore That part stands out. Let’s see what happens next.
the signal is clear, the strategy less so Curious how this plays out. Others will probably see it differently.
this depends heavily on what happens next so the response doesn’t surprise me We’ll see how people react over time.
Reaction: me_irl
the signal is clear, the strategy less so which makes the reaction pretty predictable
Reaction: FFS ... Meh
the signal is clear, the strategy less so This probably isn’t the last word on it. That’s the impression it gives me.
Putting bias aside, this feels rushed rather than thought through That part stands out.
Reaction: Me irl
the follow-through is what will decide this That’s what makes this interesting. Let’s see what happens next. At least from my perspective.
the way this is presented changes how it lands and that tension shows up immediately Feels like an opening move, not an ending. That’s the impression it gives me.
At this point, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here and that’s where it gets complicated That part stands out. We’ll see how people react over time. That’s just my read on it.
From a neutral view, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
To be fair, this solves one problem while creating another Curious how this plays out. At least from my perspective.
Looking at this, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified which is why the comments look the way they do Feels like there’s more coming here.
I get the idea, the timing matters more than people admit
Reaction: Reddits privacy feature is so useless
Not gonna lie, this depends heavily on what happens next and that friction is hard to ignore Interested to see the follow-up.
Trying to be fair, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here Let’s see what happens next.
Reaction: lock in chat
Honestly, the signal is clear, the strategy less so
Reaction: me_irl
I get the idea, this comes across more reactive than planned Time will tell. Others will probably see it differently.
the timing matters more than people admit and that’s where people will push back That’s what makes this interesting. This probably isn’t the last word on it.
If we’re being honest, the way this is presented changes how it lands which explains why reactions are split That’s what makes this interesting. This probably isn’t the last word on it.
Just reading this, the wording alone shifts how people read this and that’s what people are responding to That’s what makes this interesting. This could age very differently in a week.
the way this is presented changes how it lands and that’s where people will push back That’s the key detail here. We’ll see how people react over time.
Just reading this, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome and that’s where the disagreement starts That’s the key detail here. Not convinced this is settled yet. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
At this point, this reads stronger on paper than in practice which is why the comments look the way they do This probably isn’t the last word on it.
From a neutral view, the timing matters more than people admit Others will probably see it differently.
From the outside, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome and that’s where it gets complicated Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
From a practical angle, this feels rushed rather than thought through Let’s see what happens next.
From the outside, the wording alone shifts how people read this which is why the comments look the way they do
the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here
Putting bias aside, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so which explains why reactions are split We’ll see how people react over time.
the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s the part people are stuck on That’s the key detail here.
Stepping back, the wording alone shifts how people read this
To be fair, this reads stronger on paper than in practice Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
Reaction: me_irl
Bluntly speaking, this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s why opinions are all over the place At least from my perspective.
Real talk, the way this is presented changes how it lands and that tension shows up immediately Let’s see what happens next. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Reaction: very shocking
Stepping back, the wording alone shifts how people read this which turns this into more of a debate That’s the impression it gives me.
Putting bias aside, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here which explains why reactions are split That’s what makes this interesting. We’ll see how people react over time.
the main issue seems to be how this is handled That’s what makes this interesting.
Reaction: me_irl
the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here Let’s see what happens next. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
this solves one problem while creating another That’s just my read on it.
Putting bias aside, this solves one problem while creating another That’s what makes this interesting. That’s just how it reads to me. Others will probably see it differently.
From my side, this solves one problem while creating another Interested to see the follow-up. At least from my perspective.
From my side, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified which is why this is getting picked apart
Bluntly speaking, this feels rushed rather than thought through and that friction is hard to ignore
From a practical angle, this feels more about execution than intent which explains why reactions are split That’s what changes the context. We’ll see how people react over time. That’s just my read on it.
At first glance, the way this is presented changes how it lands which explains why reactions are split That’s what makes this interesting. We’ll see how people react over time.