The goal here isn't to make closing a secret process of some sort. It's often important to know what all has happened to a post, and why - so the revision history and timeline seek to provide this.
Removing the names (and other details) from the default question view aims to preserve the bare minimum amount of information needed (the question cannot be answered) while leaving the full context for the places where it can be found (timeline and revision history).
The hope here is that this moves us away from blaming and shaming. Consider: If I see a closed question, all I know is that it was closed and perhaps that it was edited. Maybe if I'm careful, I'll note that it was edited after it was closed... But without clicking through to the revision history, I won't know if the edit was substantial, if the close voters acted in good faith based on the nature of the post at the time and then later it was fixed. This has led to a lot of fairly nasty interactions in the past, with folks blaming voters for closing what appears to be a perfectly reasonable question!
The same logic applies to guidance for the asker themselves: the old banners were full of details on the nature of the problem and advice to edit (even when it no longer applied, because the asker had edited). Once again, a concerned reader should be looking at the full history before drawing any conclusions here.
