Don't forget that even if they end up being just one node in any p2pool network - be it the existing one or a new one, they will be far more than 51% of that network meaning it's as good as a centralised pool.
Like I said, they're paying homage to the idea of decentralisation because clients are demanding it so it makes for good marketing on their part. While them contributing to p2pool is most welcome, I see no sign of any of the alleged decentralisation.
I think they intend on open sourcing the code so that existing nodes can then provide a "team" hashing effort while giving the node operator a way of paying out miners in that "team".
Problem there of course is we then have a burden of trust back on the miners towards the node operator.
I think its a step in the right direction though and a compromise between single central pools and the P2pool model.
That way you wouldn't have all miners on one node, you could still have local nodes to reduce latency. You would of course loose the freedom of moving between nodes without loosing your shares unless somehow the shares can be communicated to another node, a bit hard when the sharechain is tracking shares for the nodes wallet and not the miner itself.
