Regarding the allocation of the three hours, I imagine an adjustment could be made, rather than making two hour-and-a-half rounds mandatory. Perhaps a one-hour round would be enough with some witnesses, but we would need two hours with other witnesses, to do another round of questions. I don't know whether everyone agrees.
Again, this evening, I find it frustrating that in three minutes, I did not manage to get into a rhythm with Mr. Sloly. A few of us are in that situation.
So I think flexibility is useful. In an ideal world, we would have to go back to two two-hour meetings. In my opinion, that is the best thing. However, if we have to adjust to one three-hour meeting, we have to allow for the possibility of giving one panel of witnesses two hours and another panel one hour, or giving each of the two panels an hour and a half, based on the witnesses who are appearing.