I absolutely loved the 6 player format. I'm with Aaron on supporting infrastructure more 6 player tournaments - but not sure how that can happen yet on a large scale. Perhaps we find a way to incentivize teams registering for a tournament as a 6 player team? Either way Dallas was so much fun and the 6 player format is something completely new to work out strategy, chemistry, etc.
On the point of time limits. As a tournament organizer I have to say they are a necessary evil. I hadn't realized how much I'm actually in favor of them as player though until Dallas. Playing five matches in the round robin - even with time limits - the best teams will generally move on. Furthermore, with so many people traveling to these tournaments, I believe everyone should get all their round robin games in, guaranteed. Time limits make that happen without psuhing the final out too late. Additionally, if one team can't closeout at least one game of a match within the time limit, then I'm not sure how important getting the "true result" of that game is to the integrity of the tournament. That sounds harsh typing that, but I hope people understand I'm not trying to disrespect any team or player. Rather, I'm trying to simply point out that it's equally unfair to make a team wait who has won their previous match as it is to call a match short on a team playing. One might ask, what if it's two really high level teams who haven't completed the match? In that case, theoretically both teams will beat the other teams in the group and finish 5-0 and 4-1.
For now I think 3 player tournaments is the right step toward making 6 player tournaments a reality in the future.