Actually, I would prefer a good mix too. Both models have their strengths and weaknesses, so mixing them should give us the chance to use them at their best.

I also see a value in being in the office and meeting the colleagues face to face. But I also like to have more free time and choose my neighborhood based on my own preferences and not based on where my work is.

I totally okay with traveling even longer distances for occasional meetings if I can otherwise be flexible and choose on my own. I hate the "being forced to come to the office" aspect.

For me there is a high chance that I might switch companies after the pandemic to retain the gained freedom I now have. Albeit "gained freedom" might be a bit much. Since I currently have to assume that it's "back to the office" again after the pandemic, I'm not yet as free as I could be with a true remote job.

Depends on your reason for wanting WFH. If you prefer your home office because it's quiet and effective, or if you have a really long commute, 2/5 or 3/5 is a good compromise. If you want to actually leave your expensive city and live in Montana, then these hybrid schemes don't help at all.

Same thing happen here and I like the hybrid model. I really did miss being around my coworkers so this helped but not every function of the office needs to be in person.

Needs a 3rd option on that poll.

I agree. I went from 0/5 days to 2/5 WFH , and I really enjoy the benefits of working from home, but I also enjoy bonding and collaborating with coworkers in person.

Do you want to go into the office, or do you want everyone else to go into the office?

One of the dynamics I expect you'll see coming out of this at companies that decide to offer a lot of flexibility is that the people who mostly want to come back into an office will get increasingly unhappy if a lot of their coworkers choose not to. (But I expect they'll be able to and will find other workplaces that are more butts in seats, which should be their response rather than try to change coworker behavior.)