Add two week membership requirement for voting at general meetings (and other minor changes)

[bradleysigma]

This change will require people to be members of UQCS for two weeks before a general meeting in order to vote (or otherwise participate, which largely means running for election or moving motions). This adds a small hurdle to prevent stacking at an election. While stacking hasn't been a problem for UQCS in the past, it can suddenly become a major problem, so it's better to guard against it preventively. The notice period for a general meeting is two weeks, so having the same length for this means that the requirement isn't overly odious. The side benefit is that quorum will be fixed two weeks out, and won't suddenly increase moments before the AGM commences.

Also includes a change to the proxy clauses, to make the section flow better, and to limit proxies to two per member, another anti-stacking measure. The Chair clause has been clarified to reflect how the AGMs actually run, with the outgoing president chairing the AGM even after the election of a new president.

[nicklambourne]

Two questions:

• How hard is this going to be to enforce at AGMs?
• Do you have any examples (in other clubs) of where this kind of stacking has taken place that could bolster the argument here?

[bradleysigma]

AGM attendees should be checked against the membership list currently, so it shouldn't be too much of a change to enforce this. The simplest way would be to change the admin portal of the membership system to format any membership under two weeks old somehow e.g. shade it red.

When I was on C&S Committee, this sort of thing would come up a few times per year. It's been a while since I was on C&S Committee, so I don't remember precisely which clubs; I'm fairly sure SASS was one of them, though. @ew-b could probably expand on this.

[bradleysigma]

I'll also add that dropping the membership from $5 to $2, as was done recently* makes stacking easier; this change would have been less necessary were the fee still $5.

[bradleysigma]

@JamesDearlove, the agm-2023 tag may have been applied to this a bit prematurely and/or optimistically (and maybe #51, too).

[JamesDearlove]

The agm-2023 tag was applied to all issues that were up for discussion at the AGM. It's not for the result