To me the conflict is not just time allocation, but it's the mentality. When you put your engineer hat all you can see are flaws, but when you put on your CEO hat, especially in the context of fundraising or biz dev you need to spin things positively. I find it difficult to make this mental switch.
Per the article I think the trick is to know when to make the switch. At first, if you're the technical CEO, it means you're the guy who maybe talks to prospects and angels (if applicable) That might be two half days a week over time. So clearly coding adds a boat load of value. The trick is to determine when you really need that Fred full time CEO.
This is definitely a challenge, but its also a challenge for engineers who are new to management as well. Rather than lead their team into becoming a problem solving group, they can jump in and just fix things to keep stuff moving along. The line between too 'hands off' and too 'hands on' is hard to navigate. Easier when there are other things taking your time but hard when you're in a hiring lull or there aren't any upper level things calling on you.
When I read stories about "CEO"s in startups I mentally compare the description to my CEO Meg Whitman. I think it just doesn't make a lot of sense to use the same label for a founder trying to get a startup off the ground and someone running a large company.<p>Maybe it makes more sense to have different names for the early positions and ask the question when's the right time to hire a CEO.