This looks very lovely. Thank you Alison for drafting it!
The only part that concerns me is explicitly defining "We advance human rights" as part of Tor's core mission.
The problem is that many people who need Tor the most live in countries in which Tor's active alignment with liberal human rights advocacy would substantially (certainly non-negligibly) increase the chance of Tor being banned.
Focusing on human rights gets you on the shit-list for most countries in both Southeast Asia and Africa. (Combined with China, this comprises ~44% of the world population per Wolfram Alpha.) Presumably, privacy naturally dovetails with human rights, but by explicitly stating we are primarily focused on human rights, Tor is likely to be banned in many countries in which it is sorely needed.
For example, in Singapore they were discussing banning Tor but I was able to sway them to refrain because Tor is not just "human rights" (which the government does not care for), but is a privacy technology for many things, such as whistleblowing (which the government likes).
By pigeon-holing Tor into chiefly the human-rights category, it makes the argument to not ban Tor much more difficult. And Tor being banned is counter-conducive to human rights in these regions.
So here's the question:
** Would people support Tor Project aligning itself with explicit human rights advocacy even if that alignment is likely to obstruct the most-needy users' capacity to use Tor software? **
-V