Berserk,
I'm going to answer your question as an engineering problem rather than a CAD one. That looks a lot like a piece of interior Automotive trim so I get that you don't want sink marks and that somebody has most likely handed you a set of best practices that dictate all sorts of things. I agree that 0.8 is an absolute minimum thickness at the tip of the rib in fact I would have said 0.9, you should rightly be worried that teh rib won't fill. The 1.1 at the base is designed to avoid sink marks, but if you don't have enough draft the rib is going to stick in the tool and can will also pull a sink due to the resistance it may have to releasing. So we used to use the 60% rule which would have allowed up to 1.5 at the base, now with newer softer materials and conservative moulding practices some people are recommending a 40% rule which says only 1.0 at the base, which is too thin to design anything useful.
John's example works as far as providing the technical solution to your problem but it is perhaps a little more work to have to do this on each and every rib, plus it simply doesn't have enough draft. Only about 0.1 degrees.
What I have attached for you shows a draft vector in the file, and has the dimension of thickness of the rib at the base using the PMI. I have used 0.25 degrees the absolute minimum I'd ever go to 0.8 constant at the tip the absolute thinnest you'd ever want to use, and allowed the base to blow out to 1.22 which is still less than 50%. If you're concerned you could locally thicken the 2.5 wall to 3.0 to ensure that the part doesn't sink.
The other thing some engineers occasionally do if the rib isn't designed to bottom out on another part but is just for reinforcement is to allow it to be under thickness at the tip (in your case it would be 0.7) and if she fills great and if not it then it may not be critical to the design.
Best Regards
Hudson
www.jamb.com.au
Nil Desperandum illegitimi non carborundum