Tracking errata for ActivityPub, Activity Streams core and Activity Vocabulary

For the last few years, the CG has tracked incoming issues for the
ActivityPub and Activity Streams 2.0 specifications, and when errors are
noted, we have maintained a list of errata.

During our joint discussion today, we proposed adopting the versions of
these docs with errata corrections applied as the basis of the next version
of the documents.

It seems to me that this is a good point to stop tracking errata for these
documents, and start making those changes directly to the new drafts. For
example, spelling errors or syntax errors in the examples.

Does this reflect everyone else's understanding of the state of the
documents? Is there a reason I don't see clearly to keep tracking errata
separately?

In this case, I'd like to refocus the work on issue triage to triage of
proposed changes to the drafts of the WG, rather than as a pipeline to
errata updates.

Evan