It's for engineering leaders. We don't have anyone who is the "CTO of a company of 1, just out of a bootcamp", but here are some of the profiles of people we have:
1. CTOs & VPs of Engineering of VC backed, bootstrapped, or publicly traded, companies with employee counts of 10-5,000. This makes up the bulk of the members (probably 90%).
2. Engineers who have started their own companies as CEO. They're engineers, have been their entire life, and still do some coding because they love it, but now they happen to also be responsible for other stuff. (5%)
3. CTOs of new startups, out of an accelerator (usually Techstars, Boomtown, or YC). They're teams > 3, so this type of CTO still does a fair bit of coding, but also manages a few resources (either FT, PT, or outsourced) to get engineering done. Their goal is to learn from all the experience in the group. (5%)
This is a better definition, the role of CTO changes dramatically as the company grows. Steve Kleiman (NetApp's CTO) used to joke that a CTO was just a VP of Engineering who failed at Managing people. And while it is funny its also got a hint of truth.
But when you look at Engineering leadership, when you're small (one engineering team) that means the CTO can talk to any engineer and understand and advise them on the technical goals of the product and the processes by which that product is being produced.
As you get larger the CTO needs to be able to explain to a customer's technical staff why their product is the way it is, and how that relates to what the customer wants to do with it. At this point you are probably mentoring more people than managing them, having hired managers for the day to day.
Larger still and the CTO is not only helping customer's see the value, they are watching the changes in the technology that are going to make the current products obsolete in 3 to 5 years. They spend a lot of time looking forward so that they can warn the engineering leadership when it is time to swerve.
Once you're an "Enterprise company" there are now lots of people who are the CTO of this, or the CTO of that. But the actual CTO is an integral part of the executive staff who is keeping the enterprise value up by, most likely, working with the M&A team to acquire companies that will shore up gaps in the strategy.
I know what you're getting at, and there does tend to be a difference between corporate CTOs of non-technical companies, start-up CTOs and CTOs of large tech companies. However, they're all very much real (but different) roles. You can't just throw any developer into a CTO role and expect it to work. Certainly developers do move into CTO roles (myself included) but there's a lot to learn/do beyond writing code.
No, calling yourself "CTO" of a 2 person company does not make you a CTO. You might be a manager, a founder, or some other title, but you're absolutely and unquestionably not a CTO.
That's like saying you start a company by yourself and you can't call yourself a CEO. CTO, at any size, still has a lot of concerns that aren't just code level, so the title is valid.
However, context is very important. Anyone that looks at someone's resume and sees that they're the CEO of a single person company will understand that they're on a different level than the CEO of a publicly traded company.
EDIT: the other thing that gets conflated here in these title discussions is non-technical founders thinking they need a CTO, when really they just need a lead developer. That definitely muddies up the conversations.
That said, I think that a CTO of a 2 person company and a 500 person company deal with a few of the same issues, but a lot of the same responsibility (tech leadership, the final arbiter of tech decisions).
In my case, I'm not even a founder of the company of which I'm CTO, actually I'm not even a director. I was appointed CTO by the board, of which I'm not a member, and the company is profitable.
