Please don't be the guy who hides behind literalist excuses.
The intent is clear - to reference the "division of responsibility rule" in this context and then deny the obvious intent is disingenuous. "I didn't say public knowledge results in no oversight, I was just randomly pointing out that if everyone is responsible than no one is responsible. Just throwing that out there, your conclusions are your own."
The "obvious intent" is to reinforce the idea that oversight is a function like any other business process and there should be organizations whose actual responsibility is to handle that function.
That doesn't have to mean another government office, it can mean something like the EFF, ACLU, or some other non-profit dedicated to performing that function on behalf of the people.
Simply making the glass transparent has no value if no one looks through it. If we as people don't setup some form of oversight or advocacy (and just wait for someone else to do it) then it doesn't matter how transparent the government is.
Is that what I actually said?