isn't it the very nature of a distributed vcs to be able to work without a central repository? I like the post, but I think the title is misleading ( sorry to be that guy ).
Dvcs systems have that potential, but people still generally fall back to using a central repo for sharing, because the network gets in the way of direct push/pull. The point of the article is to show one way of working around that.
If you follow it to its logical conclusion, then every member of a team can expose their working repo and any member can pull from any other member at any time.
Why would you keep it that way instead of defining some central repository which contains the current dev branch?