Author and signatory #1 is the same as the Contributor Covenant, which is the CoC adopted by the Linux Kernel.
Upon my first read, as I frequently find is the case, I either agree or disagree with it, based on unfortunately unspecified context and goals. I feel in general many manifestos, value statements, etc (generally focusing on "how do we accomplish something") would benefit from stating goals ("what are we trying to accomplish").
Once we agree on the goals, we can more objectively (if not perfectly objectively) discuss do these methods and statements move us toward these goals.
In general life, absolutely, I'll agree with most or maybe even all statements. I wouldn't even find them particularly controversial. Communication can be as important as technical skills - sure, I live that every day. We need to understand privilege, and enable everybody - absolutely. True on vast majority of projects in vast majority of contexts I've been part of. Etc
But not all: If (for an extreme example) the context is a small highly proficient working group and goal is an unprecedented technical achievement, majority of these are either unproductive or counterproductive to the goal and the context. If you have three people in the world that understand math to accomplish this project, and your goal is to accomplish this project, you need to involve at least one of the three people in this project - their background, communication skillset, and other aspects notwithstanding.
So stating goals is I find critical in evaluating methods to accomplish those goals.
It's not ideal, but it is what it is. Capitalism rewards meritocracy in the local maxima.
It sounds... opposite from everything I thought we've all been fighting for in the tech community, but I could be wrong? :-S