There’s a distinction here, I think; you’re seeing a “fork” as being a bad thing which causes drama. In the other thread, the SuSE people are rather proud of how SuSE Studio contains eleven thousand different “respins” of SuSE. A good proportion of the Debian “forks” are like that; people taking the known-good base of Debian and building a “customised” version of it which meets particular needs. The most prominent example of such a thing is Ubuntu, which by virtue of some of the good engineering and popularity became itself a base on which people could make “flavours” of Ubuntu (Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Ubuntu Studio, and the like). Occasionally there are “respins” which define themselves a new identity and compete against the “parent”: Ubuntu arguably did this with Debian, and Linux Mint do it moreso with Ubuntu. But this “forking”, in both the Debian ecosystem and the SuSE ecosystem, is pretty much seen as a sign of health – you have the freedom to take a well-engineered base and customise it to your liking, and then also the freedom to let other people easily use your customised version if it meets their needs too. There is, occasionally, drama when a “flavour” or “respin” feels that it’s mistreated by the “parent”, or vice versa, but that’s human nature for you; I suspect that anyone who makes a SuSE respin and then finds that it’s broken by changes in OpenSuSE itself feels similarly aggrieved. But these are minor issues.
Here’s a graph of some SuSE Studio respins, so you can see the point; I grabbed details of about 200 of the spins to make the graph, but the actual graph would be a lot more complicated, because there aren’t 200 spins, there are eleven thousand.
“Splitting off” is not drama. It is a good thing.