Disagree. I think it's vital for company's in their infancy like...

Disagree. I think it's vital for company's in their infancy like Nor to have the person with the idea also in charge. It becomes their baby and they will give their all to make it succeed. If you farm out the management of a developing company too early, then management who are less personally (not economically) invested in the product are more likely to stifle development. On the other hand, there is the risk that the "do-er" also being the CEO runs the risk of an undisciplined business, but frankly I'd rather a "do-er" in charge that's willing to back their ideas and take risks than a company that employs a CEO with great management experience that is more risk averse.

Does the model of the man in charge wearing two hats always work? No. Does the model of there being a do-er and a separate CEO ever work? Yes. But on balance, for a speculative stock, I prefer the former to the latter.

Anyway, you've taken the wrong message from my comment - Gyro's implication is that an engineer is the wrong individual to run a publicly listed company, my contention is there's good evidence to show that engineer's are quite capable, and in fact, an asset to have as a CEO.