I have reviewed several papers for a particular journal in the field of computer science. This journal has the practice of not informing reviewers about the final decision. As an example, I previously suggested a major revision and after a couple of weeks I received the revised paper, then I suggested a minor revision and had radio silence since then (6-7 months ago), so I have no idea whether the paper was accepted, rejected or withdrawn.
To me, it seems like both the decision and the non-blinded, non-private parts of the correspondence should be shared. This seems reasonable given the effort I expended; further, it would be helpful for my future reviews to know whether my review was on par with the others (in terms of both the decision, and the comments). It seems like there is already software that would automate this process (this journal uses Open Journal System as its editorial management system).
Are there disadvantages I am overlooking? What are the arguments for not sharing this information with the reviewers?