# Support Adding Types to People App

**URL:** <https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578>\
**Category:** Ideas & Features\
**Created:** [April 24, 2021, 1:36pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578 "2021-04-24T13:36:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Oshyan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/oshyan/32/11431_2.png) [@Oshyan](https://community.fibery.io/u/Oshyan)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 3:28pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578/5 "2021-04-28T15:28:15Z")

</div>

> [@antoniokov](#):
>
> People App should be an App just like others with its own Types and Access. There is a chance we’ll make it into one as a part of our group permission improvements 🤞

There is a difference of opinion on whether “People” (i.e. “Users”) should be an “App” or “Type” at all. I think this is actually not intuitive. I imagine you have seen discussion here:

> [@Add People Without Permissions](https://community.fibery.io/t/add-people-without-permissions/1577/11):
>
> If you just consider how the rest of Fibery is built, the Users type just doesn’t fit the same pattern. A Type should be a basic Type and any custom behaviors are added via extensions. The extensions, as far as I know, don’t limit you from adding entities to that type. The Users type does. The problems I’m running into I believe wouldn’t exist if this architectural pattern was applied consistently.

> [@Add People Without Permissions](https://community.fibery.io/t/add-people-without-permissions/1577/12):
>
> After thinking about this discussion for a while, I tend to agree with you an elegant solution would be that ‘user’ is an extension (requiring an email address) available to any type, which adds the behaviours (permissions, notifications etc.).

> [@Add People Without Permissions](https://community.fibery.io/t/add-people-without-permissions/1577/14):
>
> My feelings exactly. It is actually weird and awkward that _users_ are represented as a _type_ right now, IMO. The functionality that Fibery “users” brings - account association and @mentioning - seem more intuitively like “Extension” functionality to me.

---

_[View the full topic](https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578)._