Sorry, Josh, there's no chance we know the same people. Further, for the people I know, the best form of introduction is a good peer-reviewed paper of original research, and I can't find any for you.
Yes, the work executes as software, but the crucial work is not software or computer science; given the crucial work, the software is routine. On my Board you'd have to understand the crucial work, or I'd be at risk of you going all a-flutter and doing something destructive to the company.
Suggestion: Good work can usually be planned well. And it really is possible to evaluate good plans; it's been done often enough in the past. Your 'heat seeking missiles' are curious but do indicate some poor planning. "If you don't know where your going, any wind will take you there." "Measure twice, saw once". Good plans are tough to find; it's faster and cheaper to sift through the plans just between the ears and then on paper before charging off in an expensive way in some one direction. "Typing [software] is no substitute for thinking."
Has Ms. Herron learned to use e-mail yet, or is she still losing messages? She must be bright if she has found a good connection between her English major and information technology entrepreneurship.
Josh, I don't think there is anyone in your company with a technical background that would make me want to hire them, including for my Board.
Market > Execution
Vision > Product
This reminds me of Marc Andressen's post "The only thing that matters": http://web.archive.org/web/20071011023653/blog.pmarca.com/20...