Organizations that would be impacted by a 'singular sysadmin' already take measures to counter that possibility.
For instance, in an organization that I have worked with, the principle of assigning least privelege is adhered to strictly: users are given as little privelege as possible; helpdesk personnel only have enough privelege to modify computer settings (install printers and the like) and modify AD entries for the users in their section; progressively higher--more priveleged--levels require progressively more hurdles before they can make their changes.
And further, everything is traceable and documented; changes made without authorization are easily detectable and capable of being rolled back; the associated accounts can be locked down quickly for investigations as necessary.
Does it make it a bureaucratic nightmare to get things done? For normal business cases, no; if the user needs software installed, they submit a request to the helpdesk, and they get their software--assuming that they're authorized for it, anyway, but licensing is a whole other kettle of fish.
This is all possible because the possibility of a single person holding control over the network was recognized as undesirable at the start, and measures were taken to ensure that many administrators would hold the keys to making changes, and that they would be held accountable for said changes.
Similar principles hold in other places as well--this is how most large enterprise networks work (some are managed better than others), and most open-source projects with any success rate will operate their repositories in a similar fashion, with access controls, least-privelege, and accountability being built into their procedures from the beginning.
This DAN sounds, to me, like an overcomplicated anarcho-collectivist "let's make everybody important!" kind of communal fuckery. Especially with the "forking" thing, you're almost guaranteed to end up with vast quantities of incompatible systems fighting each other to determine the One True Path. It's too complicated to work effectively, and there will be too much bureaucratic overhead to make any decisions in an agile enough fashion to matter.